I think this business with the papers will get murkier over the coming days.The bloggers will eventually come out with the truth as the newspapers will hardly want to inform their readers on how they operate.Stick to the internet for more information and get informed debate on the DS Politics forum.There are many truthsayers here!
I think the people attacking Guido and the Daily Mail are trying dodge the issue at hand here by bringing attention away from what the real story is. A woman with undoubtedly strong links to the Guardian made some vile comments about the deaths of some young lads because she thought they were posh. Just because Guido made a sensationalist headline (which I don't think was that far off. Looking at her articles tells me she is definitely a hack) doesn't mean Kia Abdullah should be let off the hook.
Maybe it is wrong to use this story as a stick to beat the left with, but with the NOTW phone hacking story, it looks to me like many left wing commentators are using it to attack News Corp and the right with.
except the attack on NI is from left and right, across the board
I think the people attacking Guido and the Daily Mail are trying dodge the issue at hand here by bringing attention away from what the real story is. A woman with undoubtedly strong links to the Guardian made some vile comments about the deaths of some young lads because she thought they were posh. Just because Guido made a sensationalist headline (which I don't think was that far off. Looking at her articles tells me she is definitely a hack) doesn't mean Kia Abdullah should be let off the hook.
Maybe it is wrong to use this story as a stick to beat the left with, but with the NOTW phone hacking story, it looks to me like many left wing commentators are using it to attack News Corp and the right with.
Not being too far off isn't good enough if you are wrong and sensationalist with it.
And, as she's not written for The Guardian for over a year she's not much of a hack; as has been pointed out, far less of one than the weekly Telegraph columnist Boris Johnson.
And I think employing the man at the head of the NOTW during much of the phone hacking scandal is a stronger link than the odd article for an obscure bit of the Guardian website.
Ah all the usual suspects out to defend this vile brand of intolerance.
Wonder if they'd be doing the same if the person responsible for the tweets was white or male?
I doubt it.
And of course earlier in the thread you guaranteed she was hoping she could hide behind her name (as if it being Arabic somehow protects her from verbal attack). Not that you have an agenda of course.
I haven't seen anyone defending what she said. Some people are however defending against the accusation that (a) she speaks for the Guardian and (b) her thoughts echo the left in general.
And of course earlier in the thread you guaranteed she was hoping she could hide behind her name (as if it being Arabic somehow protects her from verbal attack). Not that you have an agenda of course.
I haven't seen anyone defending what she said. Some people are however defending against the accusation that (a) she speaks for the Guardian and (b) her thoughts echo the left in general.
I perfectly agree she does not speak for the Guardian.
With regards to your point (b) - I have many, many friends on the left and not one would echo her view. They would be (and are) as offended as I am. It's the same as those who think because some of us have a great respect for Lady Thatcher we are all evil, working class hating baby eaters.
I perfectly agree she does not speak for the Guardian.
With regards to your point (b) - I have many, many friends on the left and not one would echo her view. They would be (and are) as offended as I am. It's the same as those who think because some of us have a great respect for Lady Thatcher we are all evil, working class hating baby eaters.
Both are very, very wrong and quite rude.
Trust that was snipe free enough for you
Welcome back to positive engagement. I'm glad we agree on something.
May I be the first to say I never thought you were a working class hating baby eater. Not for long anyway.
Ms Abdullah has apparently made the classic mistake in assuming that she knows the politics of these young men simply because of their posh names (despite the fact that that's hardly relevent to this tragic incident anyway).
Jeez when will middle class lefties acknowledge that having a posh sounding name does not automatically make one a member of the Tory party, countryside alliance, capitalism, hunting, etc. Indeed the irony of scoffing at other people's 'poshness' when the accusors are often hardly council estate dwellers themsleves appears lost on them!
Besides, for all we know one or all those killed could've been, well, middle class lefties! Again though, class is hardly relevant in this rather sad case.
Btw, I laughed at Abdullah's 'moody' Guardian photo. Presumably the moody look is meant to imply intelligence and deep thinking! Nice try love.
*awaits inevitable 'Kia Abdullah Appreciation Thread' from Phoenix*
Snobbery is alive and well throughout all social classes. What a nasty little shit this woman is. Got to be given her P45 surely?
Just pointed out that if ethnic/gender slant on this had been reversed there'd be no one defending the tweeter - and rightly so.
But because she is who she is half the FMs here are going out of the way to defend comments that in any other circumstances would be justly lambasted for the intolerant tripe they are.
Just pointed out that if ethnic/gender slant on this had been reversed there'd be no one defending the tweeter - and rightly so.
But because she is who she is half the FMs here are going out of the way to defend comments that in any other circumstances would be justly lambasted for the intolerant tripe they are.
I thought victorlaslo's post was so well-written and so dry, it served as a very nice counterpoint to yours. Do you agree?
Just pointed out that if ethnic/gender slant on this had been reversed there'd be no one defending the tweeter - and rightly so.
But because she is who she is half the FMs here are going out of the way to defend comments that in any other circumstances would be justly lambasted for the intolerant tripe they are.
Which observation may have accidentally drawn an almost-correct conclusion from incorrect premises.
You're probably right that under other circumstances, those defending the freelancer would not be doing so. However, I rather doubt her gender or ethnicity has anything to do with the "defence", such as it is - but rather, it's probably more a case that anyone speaking out either takes issue with placing greater emphasis on the relationship between the tweeter and the Guardian than they feel is warranted. There may, to some lesser degree, be some latent inverted-snobbery kicking around amongst some FMs here.
But I rather suspect that's as far as it goes. I don't think there's any cause to draw inferences about race and ethnicity - and even bringing up the matter is pretty much asking for trouble, as one's motives in doing so are likely to be questioned.
No-one's defending what she said; it was a bloody stupid and needlessly cruel comment. People are just objecting to the fact that so much emphasis has been placed on the fact that she flogged a couple of articles to the Guardian (and none in over a year), effectively trying to give the impression that this is typical of Guardian columnists.
He has not successfully refuted the claims I made.
There was a weak attempt at sarcasm... ...oooh, scary.
And an attempt at circumventing the forum rules to get an insult in.
If that counts as clock cleaning, you might need the help of Mr Sheen; because I still see dust.
He didn't need to, he parodied your claims nicely. I think "owned" is the word commonly used on the interweb.
Anyway part of your claim was that "the usual suspects" were defending her, when in fact no one is. Her comments have been universally condemned. The argument is mainly about how close her link was to the Guardian.
The problem with things like this is the difference between sick jokes about tragedies in public and sick jokes about tragedies in private.
When they're in public obviously you risk causing massive offence to people directly involved and she needed to think about the fact that publishing a status on Twitter is public.
That's why it's so bad basically - attempting to get attention via.a tragic event. Attempts to turn this into a "racist" or left wing thing are just silly.
Of course rather than dwelling on the actual tragedy we will all revel in the ensuing argument and fuss about her comments rather than people dying.
I was being gentle. Actually, he cleaned your clock.
Can't say he cleaned his clock - he didn't actually counter the points he just characterised the poster and insulted him as well which just polarises the debate even further and isn't particularly helpful.
Obviously I happen to disagree with the PoliticoRN poster but still he makes a fair point.
That's why I'm going to go even further.
If you in anyway refute the obvious link between this woman and radical Wahabbists, or any link between this woman and the Guardian, or anyone who has ever bought it, or anyone who has thought of buying it then you are a terrorist.
I can't find any evidence that Kia Abdullah still writes for the Guardian (her last column was in May 2010). Not that the newspaper she is published by makes much of a difference.
Her comments were very nasty and very unlike any other regular Guardian journalist or columnist I have ever known. Indeed the level of sobriety and the lack of a sneering edge to the journalism is one reason why I and many others have gravitated to the Guardian.
Here Kia Abdullah has apologised to the bereaved families and here she explains why she finally removed the tweets.
I feel that characterising her as a "Guardianista" was misplaced. It reflects poorly on the original poster that he didn't check his facts.
Can't say he cleaned his clock - he didn't actually counter the points he just characterised the poster and insulted him as well which just polarises the debate even further and isn't particularly helpful.
vicorlaslo's post (apologies, I can't say I'm speaking for him) contained a really funny and on point reference to the sufragettes, it made me chuckle. It was in reach of most people who have some political knowledge which predates Lembit Opik.
It also seemed to swoop, soar and sail far over the recipient's head.
By the typical standards of the politics forum, I think it was far above average.
Ethel, Can you confirm that you know that the headline was changed on the "order-order" website? Is there any proof for this?
Ethel_Fred - just a polite reminder that this question is still open. People might think you were "lying" about this, so best reply to clear up any confusion.
But because she is who she is half the FMs here are going out of the way to defend comments that in any other circumstances would be justly lambasted for the intolerant tripe they are.
?
Without re reading the entire thread I can't be sure there's not any but your suggestion that half the posters on here are defending her comments is ludicrous.
Ethel_Fred - just a polite reminder that this question is still open. People might think you were "lying" about this, so best reply to clear up any confusion.
From my personal recollection and because the OP posted it that way - most posters post the headline as it appears and tend only to change the headline if it doesn't fit in the title.
But what difference does it make even if it was changed or not? The headline in either version is wrong, and STILL contains a lie as well as an implication about Guardian involvement.
I take you have given up trying to defend Guido and his lies.
Comments
except the attack on NI is from left and right, across the board
apart from some rightarded defenders of NI.
And, as she's not written for The Guardian for over a year she's not much of a hack; as has been pointed out, far less of one than the weekly Telegraph columnist Boris Johnson.
And I think employing the man at the head of the NOTW during much of the phone hacking scandal is a stronger link than the odd article for an obscure bit of the Guardian website.
I haven't seen anyone defending what she said. Some people are however defending against the accusation that (a) she speaks for the Guardian and (b) her thoughts echo the left in general.
With regards to your point (b) - I have many, many friends on the left and not one would echo her view. They would be (and are) as offended as I am. It's the same as those who think because some of us have a great respect for Lady Thatcher we are all evil, working class hating baby eaters.
Both are very, very wrong and quite rude.
Trust that was snipe free enough for you
May I be the first to say I never thought you were a working class hating baby eater. Not for long anyway.
Snobbery is alive and well throughout all social classes. What a nasty little shit this woman is. Got to be given her P45 surely?
I never said anyone was persecuted.
Just pointed out that if ethnic/gender slant on this had been reversed there'd be no one defending the tweeter - and rightly so.
But because she is who she is half the FMs here are going out of the way to defend comments that in any other circumstances would be justly lambasted for the intolerant tripe they are.
I thought victorlaslo's post was so well-written and so dry, it served as a very nice counterpoint to yours. Do you agree?
Oh it was well written.
Not to sure I'd encourage anyone to throw themselves under galloping horse though -- even people with whom I disagree.
Some of us seem to believe in freedom of speech; other only when we agree with what is being spoken.
oh I think victorlaslo may believe in your right of free speech, and he used his to gently deconstruct your case.
I think both you and he are free to think that.
Just as flat-earthers are free to believe that too.
I was being gentle. Actually, he cleaned your clock.
Which observation may have accidentally drawn an almost-correct conclusion from incorrect premises.
You're probably right that under other circumstances, those defending the freelancer would not be doing so. However, I rather doubt her gender or ethnicity has anything to do with the "defence", such as it is - but rather, it's probably more a case that anyone speaking out either takes issue with placing greater emphasis on the relationship between the tweeter and the Guardian than they feel is warranted. There may, to some lesser degree, be some latent inverted-snobbery kicking around amongst some FMs here.
But I rather suspect that's as far as it goes. I don't think there's any cause to draw inferences about race and ethnicity - and even bringing up the matter is pretty much asking for trouble, as one's motives in doing so are likely to be questioned.
How so?
He has not successfully refuted the claims I made.
There was a weak attempt at sarcasm... ...oooh, scary.
And an attempt at circumventing the forum rules to get an insult in.
If that counts as clock cleaning, you might need the help of Mr Sheen; because I still see dust.
Obviously a terrible person but what have middle Eastern people got to do with this? Or is it because she's middle Eastern it's a comment on class no?
He didn't need to, he parodied your claims nicely. I think "owned" is the word commonly used on the interweb.
Anyway part of your claim was that "the usual suspects" were defending her, when in fact no one is. Her comments have been universally condemned. The argument is mainly about how close her link was to the Guardian.
When they're in public obviously you risk causing massive offence to people directly involved and she needed to think about the fact that publishing a status on Twitter is public.
That's why it's so bad basically - attempting to get attention via.a tragic event. Attempts to turn this into a "racist" or left wing thing are just silly.
Of course rather than dwelling on the actual tragedy we will all revel in the ensuing argument and fuss about her comments rather than people dying.
Can't say he cleaned his clock - he didn't actually counter the points he just characterised the poster and insulted him as well which just polarises the debate even further and isn't particularly helpful.
Obviously I happen to disagree with the PoliticoRN poster but still he makes a fair point.
That's why I'm going to go even further.
If you in anyway refute the obvious link between this woman and radical Wahabbists, or any link between this woman and the Guardian, or anyone who has ever bought it, or anyone who has thought of buying it then you are a terrorist.
Her comments were very nasty and very unlike any other regular Guardian journalist or columnist I have ever known. Indeed the level of sobriety and the lack of a sneering edge to the journalism is one reason why I and many others have gravitated to the Guardian.
Here Kia Abdullah has apologised to the bereaved families and here she explains why she finally removed the tweets.
I feel that characterising her as a "Guardianista" was misplaced. It reflects poorly on the original poster that he didn't check his facts.
vicorlaslo's post (apologies, I can't say I'm speaking for him) contained a really funny and on point reference to the sufragettes, it made me chuckle. It was in reach of most people who have some political knowledge which predates Lembit Opik.
It also seemed to swoop, soar and sail far over the recipient's head.
By the typical standards of the politics forum, I think it was far above average.
Ethel_Fred - just a polite reminder that this question is still open. People might think you were "lying" about this, so best reply to clear up any confusion.
?
Without re reading the entire thread I can't be sure there's not any but your suggestion that half the posters on here are defending her comments is ludicrous.
But what difference does it make even if it was changed or not? The headline in either version is wrong, and STILL contains a lie as well as an implication about Guardian involvement.
I take you have given up trying to defend Guido and his lies.