https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4842270/diane...-video-blunder/

 

Her gaffe came before a bill seeking to reduce the voting age was due to be debated in Parliament on Friday.

 

It was later shelved when MPs failed to vote on time. Labour accused the Tories of indulging in long speeches to wind down the clock.

 

In a video released on Facebook on Friday, Ms Abbott said: "I believe in votes at 16."

 

She added: "If you're old enough to fight for your country, you're old enough to vote.

 

She was panned on social media for yet another numbers blunder.

 

One Facebook user said: "Sixteen-year-olds don't fight on the frontline... yet again Abbott doesn't know the facts".

 

Another blasted: "You can't fight at 16. You can join the forces but definitely no fighting until your 18. That is international law. Straight away wrong with a simple fact."

Where's your thread about David Davis thinking Czechoslovakia still exists?

Where's your thread about David Davis thinking Czechoslovakia still exists?

 

It doesn't exist (either the country or the thread).

 

I simply never heard about this, so how could I post about something I didn't know about?

I'm no fan of Abbott, but this continual over scrutiny and over hyping of relatively minor gaffes by her and her alone just reinforces and encourages the racist and sexist attacks that she has been subject to this year. It must really boil your blood that she increased her majority by 11K and got one of the largest majorities of any constituency in the UK of 35,000 back in June vid? :D :D

I'm no fan of Abbott, but this continual over scrutiny and over hyping of relatively minor gaffes by her and her alone just reinforces and encourages the racist and sexist attacks that she has been subject to this year. It must really boil your blood that she increased her majority by 11K and got one of the largest majorities of any constituency in the UK of 35,000 back in June vid? :D :D

 

I don't understand why she is so popular in her constituency, but it doesn't bother me because it would be ultra-safe Labour whoever the MP was.

 

It's surely not racist/sexist to expect senior members of the shadow cabinet not to make easily avoidable errors? :unsure:

The attack on Diane Abbott is being used to distract from the real issue. She was talking about the subject because an MP had tried to introduce a bill to reduce the voting age to 16. By talking at length about a different, relatively uncontroversial, bill, a group of Tory MPs ensured that there was only 90 minutes left to discuss the voting age. When an MP tried to put the matter to the vote, the Deputy Speaker ruled that there had not been enough discussion.

 

Even if the matter had been put to a vote and that vote went in favour of reducing the voting age, it is highly unlikely that it would have become law. However, it is surely a subject worthy of discussion in parliament.

 

That's the real issue but, once again, the press are doing their best to make sure it doesn't get discussed.

I don't understand why she is so popular in her constituency, but it doesn't bother me because it would be ultra-safe Labour whoever the MP was.

 

It's surely not racist/sexist to expect senior members of the shadow cabinet not to make easily avoidable errors? :unsure:

 

Yet you don't ever mention the hundreds of gaffes by Trump, a white male - granted they would need a whole continuous thread filled on a daily basis.

 

Or Johnson, who doesn't just do gaffes, he does outright blatant lies. As does Dave Dave, Nige Garage, Foxy Loxy and any number of Tory MP's.

 

That you choose not to start a thread on the ones they do but you choose to focus on Not-actually-in-government Rambling Di - who I'm not a fan of - is a bit errr showing bias.

Yet you don't ever mention the hundreds of gaffes by Trump, a white male - granted they would need a whole continuous thread filled on a daily basis.

 

Or Johnson, who doesn't just do gaffes, he does outright blatant lies. As does Dave Dave, Nige Garage, Foxy Loxy and any number of Tory MP's.

 

That you choose not to start a thread on the ones they do but you choose to focus on Not-actually-in-government Rambling Di - who I'm not a fan of - is a bit errr showing bias.

 

1. I have minimal interest in US politics

 

2. The papers I read rarely mention them.

 

3. I am under no obligation not to be biased.

1. I have minimal interest in US politics

 

2. The papers I read rarely mention them.

 

3. I am under no obligation not to be biased.

Good to hear you admit you are biased and get your selective facts and opinons from a biased narrow range of sources...

Good to hear you admit you are biased and get your selective facts and opinons from a biased narrow range of sources...

 

Isn't that better than lying about it. :teresa:

 

Seriously though, it's no different from others here getting their info from left-leaning sources.

 

In any case, I have posted links to Guardian articles a number of times here.

Edited November 6, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Diane Abbott shouldn't be getting a free pass by the press just because she's been getting racist and sexist attacks, when she constantly makes blunders. Of course the attacks are vile and should be stopped but she really should step down as Shadow Home Secretary and the position be given to someone more competent who doesn't mess up their numbers. I imagine she's good in her constituency considering her huge majority so she should stick to that.

 

Meanwhile I do agree that the likes of Johnson and Davis should be getting more press criticism than they are, but sadly the right wing media are just putting their hands over their ears and la la la brexit is wonderful la la take back control.

Isn't that better than lying about it. :teresa:

 

Seriously though, it's no different from others here getting their info from left-leaning sources.

 

In any case, I have posted links to Guardian articles a number of times here.

 

except that we pay attention to all sources of news.....

except that we pay attention to all sources of news.....

 

Even the Daily Mail? :teresa:

DailyMail is not a RELIABLE source.

 

The fact is the media is using this 'gaffe' to avoid talking about how Tories are stiffing younger voters AGAIN and then wondering why they don't vote for that crusty party. The gaffe is unimportant - the undemocratic attacks on parliament are. 'Take back control' = throw all power to the Tories.

Daily Mail (and The Sun) is so unreliable it doesn't really count as a 'source of news'.

Daily Mail (and The Sun) is so unreliable it doesn't really count as a 'source of news'.

 

So the Church Gun Massacre they report didn't really happen? :rolleyes:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50...opens-fire.html

 

Having proven you wrong, will you now admit they *do* publish news, albeit with an editorial slant you don't like?

So the Church Gun Massacre they report didn't really happen? :rolleyes:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-50...opens-fire.html

 

Having proven you wrong, will you now admit they *do* publish news, albeit with an editorial slant you don't like?

When did anybody suggest that none of the events reported in the Wail actually happened?

 

Your admission earlier that you hadn't read about various Tory gaffes just underlines why the Wail is considered unreliable. After all, the implication is that the rag didn't report them. Some Wail readers are, no doubt, capable of seeing through at least some of the bias in the reports they do publish. That still means that anybody using it as their principal source of news may miss a lot of stories that don't fit the Wail's agenda.

 

As an example, did the Wail bother to report why Diane Abbott was talking about 16-year-olds?

I was clearly exaggerating, but yeah, read what Suedehead said, Mail is very biased and unreliable.

I'm struggling to work out if this is a worse gaffe than Diane's: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/n...re_iOSApp_Other

 

One was a minor point with no consequences whatsoever, and the other may lead to an innocent women spending additional years in jail.

 

It's a tough one isn't it.

When did anybody suggest that none of the events reported in the Wail actually happened?

 

Your admission earlier that you hadn't read about various Tory gaffes just underlines why the Wail is considered unreliable. After all, the implication is that the rag didn't report them. Some Wail readers are, no doubt, capable of seeing through at least some of the bias in the reports they do publish. That still means that anybody using it as their principal source of news may miss a lot of stories that don't fit the Wail's agenda.

 

As an example, did the Wail bother to report why Diane Abbott was talking about 16-year-olds?

 

Yes, the Mail did report she was talking about lowering the voting age.

 

As for what the Mail (or any other newspaper) reports, their space is not infinite (especially in the printed versions) so they *have* to be selective.

 

Obviously, major stories are covered in all of them, but beyond those, it is up to the editors as to which stories they include - anything other method of deciding would be against the freedom of the press. The political spin put on stories is a somewhat separate issue, based on demographics, and the political persuasion of their core readership. That applies whether you're talking of a right-leaning paper like the Mail, or a left=leaning one like the Guardian.

 

I was clearly exaggerating, but yeah, read what Suedehead said, Mail is very biased and unreliable.

 

I address the issue of bias above, but iro reliability, they report real stories that other papers do not, because they think their readership will be interested in them - in that respect they are no different from any other newspaper.

 

Also, as Suedehead says above, readers are capable of looking behind political bias, but I see no reason to believe that Mail readers are less capable of that then readers of any other newspaper. If you have evidence (rather than simply opinion) to suggest otherwise, I'd love to debate the issue further.