The BBC has questions to answer about the Diane Abbott affair
The veteran MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was once again suspended by the Labour Party this week after saying she did not regret writing a 118 word letter to The Observer in 2023 which argued that 'Irish, Jewish and Traveller people (and redheads)… undoubtedly experience prejudice… but they are not all their lives subject to racism '.
At the time, she withdrew the remarks and apologised and was suspended before being reinstated at the last minute to stand as Labour's candidate in last year's general election.
Now she's changed her tune, telling Radio 4's Reflections programme: 'Clearly there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism,' suggesting that a black person's skin colour is visibly notable, whereas being Jewish is not.
First question: this BBC interview was pre-recorded in May – so why is the broadcaster only now asking whether her remarks are inflammatory? Did it not realise that at the time, too busy, perhaps, broadcasting 'inaccurate' Gaza documentaries and preparing Glastonbury coverage that would see Bob Vylan chant: 'Death, death to the IDF?'
Secondly, why didn't the interviewer, James Naughtie, challenge Abbott with her own words, on the BBC's Question Time on April 26, 2018, when she suggested that the Haredi Jews in her constituency were a target for anti-Semitism 'because of the costumes they wear'?
She cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that Jews don't suffer the same racism as black people because they're white (even though a lot of Jews have dark skin) and then claim that they are the victims of racism because they are so obviously Jewish.
I wonder if she would refer to Muslims who wear traditional clothing – or African or Caribbean people – as wearing 'costumes' and therefore open to abuse?
Abbott claims it is 'obvious this Labour leadership wants me out'. On the basis of this evidence, who can blame them?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Essex Police chief rejects calls to resign over handling of Epping asylum hotel protests after force admitted escorting pro-migrant activists to demo before violent clashes broke out
The chief constable of Essex Police has dismissed calls to resign over the force's handling of the Epping protests after footage emerged of officers escorting pro-migrant activists to an asylum seeker hotel where violent clashes erupted. Ben-Julian Harrington rejected calls from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to step down and firmly extinguished claims his officers had given a higher level of protection to pro-migrant protesters. Asked if he would resign, he told a press conference today: 'No, I am not [resigning]. I am not going to do that. This is not about me, this is about the communities of Essex.' He added: 'The issue is not about my resignation. The issue is about an effective police operation that keeps the communities of Epping safe...' The Bell Hotel, in Epping, Essex, has been the centre of a string of violent demonstrations after an asylum seeker was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl in the town eight days after arriving in the UK. Essex Police had initially denied it had brought Stand Up to Racism activists to the hotel before ugly clashes broke out with anti-migrant protesters on Thursday. But after being shown footage of officers leading the group from a nearby station to outside the hotel, the force then backtracked and admitted it had provided a 'foot cordon'. Nigel Farage called for Chief Constable Harrington to resign, saying the footage is 'absolutely disgraceful' and 'heads must roll'. The Reform UK leader later posted footage allegedly showing pro-migrant protesters being 'bussed' to the demonstration in police vans but Essex Police said this was 'categorically' untrue. The force explained that pro-migrant protesters were given a 'foot cordon' on their way to the protest and those who were 'clearly at risk of being hurt' later on were 'escorted by vehicle'. Facing a barrage of questions today, Chief Constable Harrington rejected claims his officers had given a higher level of protection to pro-migrant protesters. 'No, I don't accept that,' he said. 'The only protection that officers are doing is to those lawful and law-abiding people, whether they are in that accommodation, whether they are the people of Epping or whether they are people who are standing there with placards and banners wishing to make a very important and legitimate view, whichever your views about it. 'Where officers have intervened that is because there has been are not being partial in any way, shape or form.' The chief constable also dismissed claims pro-migrants were 'bussed' to the hotel', explaining: 'There has been some accusations in the media that we drove people to the protest. That is not true. 'We have not driven anybody to that protest. People made their own way there... we did take people away for their safety and the safety of everyone there.' He agreed that officers had walked alongside counter-protesters when they made their way to the Bell Hotel in scenes which prompted violence and attacks on both demonstrators and police. 'People have the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech,' he said. 'They have a duty to exercise their right to assembly and protest. 'People came of their own volition, walked to the protest. In order to ensure and understand the threat we had officers there and they walked alongside them so they could intervene and prevent crime.' He added: 'The issue of whether or not they [asylum seekers] should or shouldn't be there [in hotels] is not a matter for the police.' Asked about comments made by the likes of Mr Farage and others who have been accused of stoking demonstrations, he said it was 'not the police's job to clamp down on elected politicians.' However he warned they should be careful if their comments lead to violence. 'All I'm asking is people are responsible for what they say and consider the real-world consequences. Where people commit crimes online we will apply the law. Where people have their views where I or others disagree I appeal for people to be responsible and consider what they say.' Mr Harrington said that colleagues in forces across the country had been discussing with the Home Office issues around housing asylum seekers in hotels. He added: 'What is unacceptable is the people who have come to Epping and committed violence, attacked people at the hotel, attacked officers, damaged property and caused fear and disruption to the people of Epping.' Four people have now been charged with violent disorder, with one charged with failing to remove a face covering when directed to do so. Two people have been arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, one on suspicion of having an article with intent to cause damage and one on suspicion of using threatening words or behaviour. Protests have since spread to other parts of the country, with more than 150 gathering outside The Park Hotel, in Diss, Norfolk on Monday after the Home Office announced plans to change it from housing asylum-seeker families to single men. Meanwhile, last night Metropolitan Police officers were forced to surround a four-star hotel in Canary Wharf after protesters gathered outside in response to Government plans to house migrants there. The demonstration in London 's financial district place took place outside the Britannia International Hotel, which Tower Hamlets Council has confirmed the Government intends to use for asylum seekers. Tuesday's action marks the latest anti-migrant protest, with Sir Keir Starmer warned Britain could face a second 'summer of riots' if Labour fails to get a grip on migrant hotels. Trouble first broke out in Epping last Thursday after Ethiopian asylum seeker Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in the town by attempting to kiss her. He denies the charges. The protest started peacefully, but descended into frenzied violence when anti-migrant demonstrators clashed with counter protesters and police. A spokesman for Essex Police said: 'There are claims on social media that Essex Police officers 'bussed' protesters to the protest outside the Bell Hotel on Thursday 17 July. 'This is categorically wrong. Officers did provide a foot cordon around protesters on their way to the protest, where they and others were allowed to exercise their right to protest. 'Later some people who were clearly at risk of being hurt were also escorted by vehicle away from the area for their safety. To reiterate, we categorically did not drive any counter-protesters to the site on any occasion.'
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
UK housing crisis sparks 10% increase in young British adults living with their parents - while more than half of people living alone now are pensioners
Soaring housing costs have sparked an increase of almost 10 per cent in the number of young British adults failing to move out of their parents homes, new figures reveal today. The number of those aged 20-34 still living with mum and/or dad rose from 3.3 million in 2014 to 3.6 million last year, the Office for National Statistics said. The figures suggest fewer people are leaving home in their mid 20s, with issues like rent and mortgage costs and the uncertain job market affecting their choices. The proportion is higher among men, with a third of those in this age group still with their parents, compared to a quarter of women, with the difference most prevalent in the early and late 20s. The ONS said it was part of 'a trend of adults reaching milestones later in life' which could be explained by 'a number of factors including increased housing costs'. The data also revealed that pensioners accounted for more than half (51 per cent) of all people living alone in the UK last year, up from 45 per cent in 2014. Over 65s were the only age group where the number of people living alone actually rose, thanks to increasing life expectancy. A higher proportion of women aged 65 years or over lived alone (40.9 per cent) than men of the same age (27 per cent). Labour has pledged to deliver 1.5 million homes before the next election and has introduced major changes to the planning system. Angela Rayner has also announced plans to build 180,000 new social homes in the next decade as the Government seeks to 'turn the tide on the housing crisis'. The figure would be six times the number of social homes built in the 10 years up to 2024. It forms part of a drive to build 300,000 new social and affordable properties by 2035, backed by a £39 billion investment announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in last month's spending review. But housing charity Shelter has argued that the Government needs to build 90,000 new social homes a year for the next decade – five times the figure Ms Rayner has committed to. According to Shelter, building 90,000 social homes a year would clear waiting lists, which currently stand at around 1.3 million households, and end the use of temporary accommodation.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
UK and India about to sign landmark trade deal but not everyone's happy
As India and Britain look set to sign a free trade agreement (FTA), some industries are disappointed and want a level playing field. The Indian cabinet has given its consent to the deal as Prime Minister Narendra Modi is headed to the UK to sign it with his British counterpart Sir Keir Starmer. The pact, formally called a comprehensive economic and trade agreement, will now have to be ratified by the British parliament, which could take several months. For Britain, this is the biggest and most economically significant bilateral trade deal since it left the European Union. The government says the deal is expected to add £4.8bn to the economy and £2.2bn in wages every year in the long run. Britain is the sixth-largest investor in India, with cumulative investments of around $36bn. There are at least 1,000 Indian companies operating in the country, employing more than 100,000 people, with a total investment of $2bn. At a time when countries are trying to navigate the turbulent effects of US President Donald Trump's tariff upheaval, this pact comes as a great economic boost for both countries. What's in the deal Once made law, the agreement will reduce 90% of tariffs on British exports to India that include whisky, cars, cosmetics, salmon, lamb, medical devices, electrical machinery, soft drinks, chocolate, and biscuits. India will get a zero-tariff deal on 99% of its tariff lines, covering nearly 100% of trade value. These include clothes, footwear and food products, including frozen prawns. With a zero tariff on textiles and apparel, Indian exports will get the same advantage as countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam. India has got concessions on easy mobility for its professionals, including contractual suppliers and intra-corporate transferees with dependents. The Double Contribution Convention (DCC) that ensures employees temporarily working in the UK for up to 3 years will continue paying social security contributions in their home country. 3:50 India will reduce duties from 100% to 10% for a limited number of imports of cars, while Britain will give access to its markets for electric and hybrid vehicles. Both countries have agreed to provide national treatment (same treatment as domestic companies) in select services, including telecom, construction and environment. Areas of concern But it's Scotch whisky that has been a bone of contention in the negotiations. The UK has bargained hard, and tariffs have been slashed from 150% to 75% while retaining the issue of maturation of Scotch. Whisky to be classified as Scotch needs to mature for at least three years. During this process, a small amount - dubbed the "angel's share" - evaporates due to climate and casks. Anant S Iyer, director general of the Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies (CIABC), representing Indian manufacturers, told Sky News: "India has a tropical climate - the process of maturation is much faster. While in Scotland, the evaporation losses are around 2% a year, here it's about 10-15% yearly, depending on where you're distillery is based. "So, a one-year-old mature Indian whisky could be equal to about a three-year-old Scotch whisky. This non-tariff barrier is something that's causing us a huge setback." Indian manufacturers lose a third of volume over a three-year maturation period, which makes it unviable for them. Mr Iyer says, "while the FTA does bring cost savings for our blended whiskies, it will also open the floodgates for cheaper products from a plethora of Scotch brands in the UK". India is the largest whisky market in the world by volume, and Scotch has just 3% of that. According to the Scotch Whisky Association, which represents over 90 companies, India is its largest export market by volume, with more than 192 million bottles exported in 2024. Despite the deal, there is still little clarity on issues of "rules of origin", a provision to help contain the dumping of goods; UK carbon tax, a concern for India as it could restrict the export of metal products; and the issue of international arbitration.
