Concern for Dianne - Latest Update

[red devil]

It did indeed start on the 6th but the OP is clearly taking the proverbial out of her rather than guessing/showing concern about her condition. A couple of subsequent posts carried on in the same vein. Posters guessing/showing concern for her health started on the 7th, hence why I quoted that date.

Those closest to her, family/friends/colleagues need to ask themselves could they have done more, especially those who were aware of her condition, instead she was allowed to carry on...

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> you don't get things

> > that spectacularly wrong if you're in a normal

> > healthy state.

>

> Of course you do/could. A lack of intelligence or

> a lack of attention to detail can result in many

> unprofessional mistakes.

Of course it can - but to the extent of saying 10,000 extra police officers would cost ?300,000? As I said above, I'm no cheerleader for Abbott, but that seems to me to go far beyond stupidity or laziness and into seriously confused territory.

[red devil]

Extreme fatigue in a perfectly healthy person can lead to errors/mistakes, there doesn't have to be an underlying medical condition to make a cock-up...

[rendelharris]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those closest to her, family/friends/colleagues

> need to ask themselves could they have done more,

> especially those who were aware of her condition,

> instead she was allowed to carry on...

Totally agree - as I said above, given the almost matching vote percentages, who knows what effect her performances had on the election? Had she been pulled straight after the Ferrari interview and explained then about the diabetes it certainly would have made a difference I think - the Tories certainly saw her as a major target, a lot of interviews and speeches made far more reference to "do you want Home Secretary Dianne Abbott?" than "do you want Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn?" Big tactical blunder and one which does call JC's tactical nous into question, I think.

[uncleglen]

About 3.5 million people have type 2 in the UK....she may have got some more sympathy votes for Labour

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, banging on a bit but one thing more: had Mrs.May, herself a diabetic, made slips on figures

> due to mismanaging her medication, one suspects the majority of the press would have said poor

> woman, what a heroine for sacrificing herself for the country, hats off to her - they would

> definitely have looked for a reason rather than immediately starting with "Cor what a thickie"

> headlines.

I think we can safely say it would depend on the leaning of the press in question. I think both the left and the right would happily stick the boot into the other side, and complain vociferously when it happens to one of their own.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Sorry, banging on a bit but one thing more: had

> Mrs.May, herself a diabetic, made slips on

> figures

> > due to mismanaging her medication, one suspects

> the majority of the press would have said poor

> > woman, what a heroine for sacrificing herself

> for the country, hats off to her - they would

> > definitely have looked for a reason rather than

> immediately starting with "Cor what a thickie"

> > headlines.

>

> I think we can safely say it would depend on the

> leaning of the press in question. I think both

> the left and the right would happily stick the

> boot into the other side, and complain

> vociferously when it happens to one of their own.

I'm sure - that's why I said the majority of the press. I don't think the most one-eyed Tory would deny that the press in this country is somewhat dominated by the right.

[????]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rendelharris Wrote:

>

>

> I'm sure - that's why I said the majority of the

> press. I don't think the most one-eyed Tory would

> deny that the press in this country is somewhat

> dominated by the right.

it maybe but when I last looked the Mirror, Guardian and even the Morning Star were all readily available in all good news agents - people just don't buy them as much.

[rendelharris]

Well, excepting the Morning Star which nobody really takes seriously, doesn't it strike you as a little bit odd that in a country which is generally split about 50/50 between Labour and Tory only one broadsheet and one tabloid that are vaguely left leaning are available? Nothing to do with media billionaires who are prepared to take an operating loss (as both the Times and Sun did last year, for example) in order to have mouthpieces for their don't tax media billionaires viewpoint, I'm sure!

[Cardelia]

The Times supposedly made a loss this year due to restructuring costs but my understanding is that it is usually in profit. Similarly the Telegraph and Express are just about holding their heads above water and making small profits despite a declining circulation. The Mail, too, is profitable so it's not really true to say that right-wing media billionaires are prepared to take a loss on their papers: right wing papers (with the exception of the Sun) typically make money for their owners.

Left-wing papers, on the other hand, are making losses. Trinity Mirror Group is doing well but the actual Mirror gets subsidized by the rest of the business. The Indy had to go online-only because its circulation wouldn't support a printed paper anymore (yes, I would stick the Indy and i in the 'vaguely left leaning' camp) and the Guardian makes massive, massive losses each year. So it's not too difficult to see why there isn't more choice for left-wing people: they simply don't buy enough newspapers to make it worthwhile printing them!

[rendelharris]

Times Newspapers Ltd lost more than ?500M in the decade to 2013,a ?1.7M profit in 2013, ?0.93M loss 2014 ?10.9M profit 2015, ?4.9M loss in 2016. So overall Murdoch's ownership of the Times and Sunday Times in this century has cost him more than half a billion quid, and you honestly don't think he has any other motive for maintaining his ownership?

The UK media has become increasingly rightwing as papers have been bought out by rightwing, self-protectionist owners who use papers to promote their own low tax agendas (Murdoch, Barclay Bros). Unfortunately people are very conservative (small C) with their papers, for example my mother still takes the Times, even though she leans towards the left, simply because it's the paper she's read for seventy years. There's no chance of a new national title succeeding in this day and age, so we're stuck with what we've got. It's rather more complex and nuanced than the picture you paint.

[BrandNewGuy]

And talking of low tax agendas, don't forget Guardian Media Group's shady dealings with regard to avoiding tax:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-05-16/has-the-guardian-exploited-tax-loopholes-to-save-millions

[red devil]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Eddie Mair on PM on Radio 4 is

> a prime example of how an interviewer can be

> affable, courteous, witty and still hard hitting -

Right on cue... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/21/hang-on-a-second-boris-johnson-flounders-on-interview-circuit :)

[Loz]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And talking of low tax agendas, don't forget

> Guardian Media Group's shady dealings with regard

> to avoiding tax:

> https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-05-16/has-the-guardian-exploited-tax-loopholes-to-save-millions

Not to mention when it pushed the sale of Auto Trader through a Cayman Islands shell company to avoid tax.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/

[Sue]

No similar thread for Boris, then?

[rendelharris]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No similar thread for Boris, then?

Quite. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/22/boris-johnson-interview-disaster-diane-abbott#comment-100805562

[Sue]

No similar thread for Boris, then?

[Loz]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No similar thread for Boris, then?

You are allowed to start threads, Sue.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's Boris. He can make jokes about 'piccaninnies with watermelon smiles', get recorded arranging to have people beaten up, fail repeatedly to turn up to meetings whilst in public office, get sacked over and over for dishonesty and show complete disloyalty to even his closest friends and we'll all forgive him. He can criticise the young for their 'easy entitlement', whilst he himself went around smashing up restaurants and throwing money in the air, dressed in top hat and tails as a youth. He's just having a laugh. Diane is getting above her station, so it's far more serious. She's dangerous and incompetent. Unilike Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, she's a black woman and wasn't born to rule (in the mind of the Mail and it's ilk).

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > No similar thread for Boris, then?

>

> You are allowed to start threads, Sue.

I'm not sufficiently interested

But I am interested in the fact that Dianne's crap interview is pulled to pieces on here whilst that of Boris is ignored.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Boris is ignored because he is an affluent, white man. His behaviour is viewed via a frame of reference which is far more forgiving. It's quite unfair and says a lot about our society and culture.

[Loz]

Personally, I think this is a game between May and Corbyn that has got out of hand. It probably went like this:

Corbyn: Hey Theresa - do you want to play a game of "Worst Possible Minister Ever"?

May: OK. You go first.

Corbyn: OK. John McDonnell - Chancellor of the Exchequer

May: Putting a Marxist in charge of the treasury? That's nasty. My go. Michael Gove - Education Secretary.

Corbyn: Really? A guy that looks like he was beaten up at school on a daily basis? Ouch. OK, I'm going to go all out, play my trump card and stick an old shag of mine in as Home Secretary.

May: What??? Hugo Chavez?

Corbyn: Noooo. Diane Abbott. Nothing like a complete hypocrite as Home Sec. Her occasional racism is a bit of a bonus.

May: OK, I'll see your Diane Abbott and raise you Boris as Foreign Secretary. That's Mornington Crescent, I believe.

Corbyn. You always go too far, don't you Theresa?

[edcam]

What Sue and rahrahrah said. It's an interesting encapsulation of racism and misogyny. I'm no great defender of Abbot but the lack of self awareness displayed by many here is staggering.

[Loz]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What Sue and rahrahrah said. It's an interesting

> encapsulation of racism and misogyny. I'm no

> great defender of Abbot but the lack of self

> awareness displayed by many here is staggering.

Comparing two people's experiences and extrapolating that to wider issues is problematic at best.

Let's take another two: Corbyn and May. Leading up to the election, Corbyn got a massive amount of bad press that picked up on his every slip and trip. May got a relatively easy run. Has anyone said that there must be a huge dollop of sexism at play here? No.

Always beware of confirmation bias.

[red devil]

100...:)