She's an idiot of the first order - but nowhere do I see that she is employed by the Guardian or that it reflects Guardian policy. Plenty of people write for the Guardian, doesn't mean they are employed by them
Of course, but facts won't stop the right wingers in full outrage mode. Any opportunity to have a go at the Guardian, left wing, Labour Party, oh and the current favourite of the month, Middle class left wingers, has to be taken.
Of course, but facts won't stop the right wingers in full outrage mode. Any opportunity to have a go at the Guardian, left wing, Labour Party, oh and the current favourite of the month, Middle class left wingers, has to be taken.
Do you think Abdullah's comments are somewhat in poor taste then Dub, irrespective of who does or doesn't employ her?
A spokesman for the newspaper said: "Kia Abdullah is an occasional freelance contributor to the Guardian's Comment is Free website.
"She has never been on contract, is not on the staff of the Guardian and has not written for any part of the Guardian since May 2010. The Guardian is not responsible for what occasional contributors write on Twitter."
Who on this thead said she was employed by the Guardian and that her thoughts reflected "Guardian policy" (whetever that is)?
Why do you think people keep mentioning the Guardian in connection with this if - as you and I agree - she has little to do with it especially as she hasn't even written for them in over a year?
As I say, when Boris drops one no-one even mentions the Telegraph, so why should the Guardian be mentioned at all - let alone in the title to the thread and article?
And once again - where does it say she laughed - from what I can see the only bit of the headline that is true is the reference to death & gap year. The other bits are LIES, pure and simple.
Why do you think people keep mentioning the Guardian in connection with this if - as you and I agree - she has little to do with it especially as she hasn't even written for them in over a year?
So you agree that nobody said that she was employed by the Guardian and that her thoughts reflected "Guardian policy" (whetever that is)?
As far as I can see the only link she has with the news media is with the Guardian, so I suppose that's why people brought it up. The Guardian felt fit to comment on it so they are aware of her connection as well.
So you agree that nobody said that she was employed by the Guardian and that her thoughts reflected "Guardian policy" (whetever that is)?
As far as I can see the only link she has with the news media is with the Guardian, so I suppose that's why people brought it up. The Guardian felt fit to comment on it so they are aware of her connection as well.
No doubt the Guardian commented because someone wrote an article about how someone who last wrote for the Guardian over a year ago made a stupid remark, then mentioned the Guardian in the headline - which now STARTS "Guardian Hack", then says "one Guardian class crusader:"
So she's not a hack for the Guardian, she didn't laugh at the deaths so why aren't people condemning Guido for publishing lies? And what was the point in mentioning the Guardian at all? It's nothing to do with the story regardless of whether she wrote for it.
Ethel I can't view the order order website from the office, so don't know what he said, but the facts as mentioned are the key thing in this debate. Shooting the messenger is missing the point.
As I say, when Boris drops one no-one even mentions the Telegraph, so why should the Guardian be mentioned at all - let alone in the title to the thread and article?
That's not a good comparison. Boris isn't well known as writing for the Telegraph. He is well known for being the Mayor of London and for being Boris.
An occasional Telegraph writer who's otherwise a non-entity would draw mentions of the paper.
That's not a good comparison. Boris isn't well known as writing for the Telegraph. He is well known for being the Mayor of London and for being Boris.
An occasional Telegraph writer who's otherwise a non-entity would draw mentions of the paper.
So are you saying that this woman who occasionally contributes to Comment is Free is well known in the public eye as a Guardian writer? And if not why - cheap political point-scoring aside - bring up the "connection"?
It would make more sense to slag off twitter, that's where she made the comments.
No doubt the Guardian commented because someone wrote an article about how someone who last wrote for the Guardian over a year ago made a stupid remark, then mentioned the Guardian in the headline - which now STARTS "Guardian Hack", then says "one Guardian class crusader:"
So she's not a hack for the Guardian, she didn't laugh at the deaths so why aren't people condemning Guido for publishing lies? And what was the point in mentioning the Guardian at all? It's nothing to do with the story regardless of whether she wrote for it.
I think you should be more annoyed about what she actually tweeted rather than the context in which it was presented
The Guardian 'newspaper' lost £33 million in the year 2010.It can can be a matter of time before this rag is removed for good and its shoddy journalism thrown into the scrapheap.The Russians will have to look for new gods.
In the grand scheme of things, the heartless, stupid and inconsiderate words of one individual on twitter are not worthy of the publicity imo.
I note that she has now apologised for being "very stupid" and "very heartless" and that she "really should know better". Better late than never and hopefully she will not be so foolish in the future. Nobody can defend such a foolish statement.
But it took her an hour or two to apologise, after already tweeting twice with her idiotic comments, and it wasn't until her 3rd tweet that she posted a proper apology. The first two were just snide remarks like *hangs head in shame* and a hash tag about thoughts staying in one's head. She sounds like a vile, odious creature who just doesn't care about the deaths of these boys at all, and I hope she never works in media again.
Comments
Of course, but facts won't stop the right wingers in full outrage mode. Any opportunity to have a go at the Guardian, left wing, Labour Party, oh and the current favourite of the month, Middle class left wingers, has to be taken.
Do you think Abdullah's comments are somewhat in poor taste then Dub, irrespective of who does or doesn't employ her?
Who on this thead said she was employed by the Guardian and that her thoughts reflected "Guardian policy" (whetever that is)?
Nobody. So stop trying to create an argument out of nothing.
So do you think the Guardian should continue to commission /accept her articles?
In extremely bad taste, and quite hurtful to the families. She should be dumped as quickly as possible.
Or is that "different" .......
As I say, when Boris drops one no-one even mentions the Telegraph, so why should the Guardian be mentioned at all - let alone in the title to the thread and article?
And once again - where does it say she laughed - from what I can see the only bit of the headline that is true is the reference to death & gap year. The other bits are LIES, pure and simple.
And it's got nothing to do with how low the press can stoop- the comments weren't published in the press. She was being an asshole on her own time.
Ah yes, but the right wingers don't need an excuse to sneer at the Guardian, any opportunity will do.
So you agree that nobody said that she was employed by the Guardian and that her thoughts reflected "Guardian policy" (whetever that is)?
As far as I can see the only link she has with the news media is with the Guardian, so I suppose that's why people brought it up. The Guardian felt fit to comment on it so they are aware of her connection as well.
So she's not a hack for the Guardian, she didn't laugh at the deaths so why aren't people condemning Guido for publishing lies? And what was the point in mentioning the Guardian at all? It's nothing to do with the story regardless of whether she wrote for it.
That's not a good comparison. Boris isn't well known as writing for the Telegraph. He is well known for being the Mayor of London and for being Boris.
An occasional Telegraph writer who's otherwise a non-entity would draw mentions of the paper.
So are you saying that this woman who occasionally contributes to Comment is Free is well known in the public eye as a Guardian writer? And if not why - cheap political point-scoring aside - bring up the "connection"?
It would make more sense to slag off twitter, that's where she made the comments.
I've never heard of her before today.
I think you should be more annoyed about what she actually tweeted rather than the context in which it was presented
I find it difficult to believe any newspaper would publish that pile of self promoting egotistical crap.
Must have been one hellva slow news day
But it took her an hour or two to apologise, after already tweeting twice with her idiotic comments, and it wasn't until her 3rd tweet that she posted a proper apology. The first two were just snide remarks like *hangs head in shame* and a hash tag about thoughts staying in one's head. She sounds like a vile, odious creature who just doesn't care about the deaths of these boys at all, and I hope she never works in media again.
Ah yes, but the left wingers don't need an excuse to sneer at the Daily Mail, 'Facha', Tories, any opportunity will do
Back at ya
I take your point about the Daily Mail, I don't know what 'Facha' is, and as for the Tories, well they are fair game.
I believe the term is "distancing themselves". ;)J