Tory donor's alleged Diane Abbott remarks were racist, says Kemi Badenoch

[IwantToRetire]

Ms Badenoch becomes the most senior minister to call the alleged comments racist - going further than the official government response.
Downing Street have called Mr Hester's alleged comments "unacceptable" but without specifying why.

Asked repeatedly if Rishi Sunak would describe the words as racist, the prime minister's spokeswoman said she would not get into "further characterisation".

In a social media post, Ms Badenoch, who also serves as the equalities minister, said: "Hester's 2019 comments, as reported, were racist.

"I welcome his apology. Abbott and I disagree on a lot. But the idea of linking criticism of her, to being a black woman is appalling.

"It's never acceptable to conflate someone's views with the colour of their skin."

Earlier, health minister Maria Caulfield told the BBC she considered the comments to be racist and that she would not accept a donation from Mr Hester "if he made those comments".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68548389

Who would turn down ten million let alone return it after your have spent it? Not of course saying that anyone has allowed the amount of money their response to the alleged comments.

It manages to be both racist and misogynistic at the same time to a level I haven't seen for a while. Surely everyone needs to condemn it as such.

And while we're at it, I object to the implication that he shouldn't have said it but it would be OK to think it if he'd kept his mouth shut. But that's appalling too. It seems to be a repetitive thing, I apologise for saying that, we see you thinking it though.....you didn't apologise for that.

@murasaki yes! once some stuff is said it cannot be retracted, or apologised for, can be a window into a mind, and if in a position of power, and influence should damn one forever.

Exactly. All the apology is for is letting the light in to the mindset. And they should be stopped from having, at the very least, public influence at that point.

If I were Diane Abbott I wouldn't be picking up the phone to his mealy mouthed shitty non apology any time soon. But she'll get blamed for that too, I imagine.

I cannot find any evidence anywhere of what was 'reportedly', 'allegedly' said. The BBC article says this 'The BBC has not heard a recording, or been able to independently verify the alleged remarks.'

It's a bit weird it didn't come out at the time if he really did say these things. I can't imagine it staying quiet, it's so outrageous, it's also very threatening.

He says he made offensive remarks but not about race or sex.

Everyone's acting as if there's a recording and it's proven beyond doubt he said the things the Guardian said. Am I missing something? Is there a recording?

I hate to be suspicious but the Guardian has made up an awful lot of shite and distorted the truth at times in the past few years and obviously they have a huge incentive to trash a Tory donor.

I keep on reading he is 'alleged' to have made these remarks but also can't find an article naming who is alleging this. Who was there and has reported it 5(?) years later. How can they be sure of what they heard, do they have a recording? Why have they been sitting on what is a threat and should have been reported to police for so long?

Again, please fill me in if I'm missing something!

All the news articles seem to reference each other. With no new information, like who has released this information.

I dont think the standard of journalism is in better or any worse than in many other instances of "an unamed source" said. Loads of politcal comments about party policies are based on "an unnamed source". I suspect the BBC is the only one bothering to spell this out as they are aware they are under the microscope of the Labour Party.

And suspect that the vast majority writing lengthy articles and comments probably dont care about racism or sexism. It just part of the Westminister show where politicians and reporters egg each other on.

Its so boring when posters keep making these remarks about articles reflecting the views of women in the Tory party and then tries to make out we are all silly apolitical women fawning all over them. Also shows that you haven't read this thread, ie the comments about the Tories record on racims and sexism.

For the millionth time, these articles get reported because the frightened handmaidens in the Labour Party never say anything.

It is the silence of the left that is the problem.

It like all these threah hijackers, somethimes it feels you could be posting a recipe for a cake, and their only contribution woutl be to either say you silly women dont you realise its a tory plot or the other current favourite this is just trying to stop trans women accessing single sex spaces which the SSE allow them to do! ie both are totally untrue.

If you aren't interested in the topic of a thread why comment.

Don’t forget this Tory govt since 2010 has done more to increase poverty and reduce health outcomes than any other postwar government. Women and children are on the frontline in bearing the brunt of poverty in this country.

Anyone who believes Badenoch will improve all women’s lives for the better is at best naive, at worst dangerously deluded.

Anyone who believes Badenoch will improve all women’s lives for the better is at best naive, at worst dangerously deluded.

Please provide evidence of a post anywhere on FWR where someone has said that.

I said on another thread that I wouldn't care to live in a world ruled by Kemi Badenoch, or Liz Truss, or Miriam Cates. but that doesn't mean I think they're wrong about everything. Furthermore, I'd say KB is a much smarter politician than Sunak. OK, a low bar, but still.

I think you have misunderstood my point.

I’m not a Tory (and not even going to vote Tory despite the gender issue with Labour, because I like my Labour MP) - but I can admire Kemi Badenoch in some ways without agreeing with her on everything. I think it’s a sign of a serious politician with a brain and integrity if they can let go of blind party loyalty to stand with someone from a different party or opposition when it matters. Good on her for standing up for Diane Abbott and having a line in the sand.

And yes that was sexist and racist (if alleged remarks are true) because it drew attention to sex and race as categories and implied his dislike of Diane Abbott affects his view of everyone in those classes. As well as extremely nasty, aggressive and maybe even criminal to say she should be shot. I’m no great Abbott fan either but I’m really sorry for her having that levelled at her. If the Tories care about ethnic minorities and women generally but also in their party and among their MPs they should take this very seriously.

Is she fuck.

Real leadership would be to return this tainted donation, and look very carefully at any contracts his company has that are paid for with our money. Being racist should not translate into making money.

Tot accept a dubious apology and scurry onto the sidelines a if you are cynically playing a game.

Seems like that is a good thing all round, then.

Outrageous behaviour from this horrible man, I hope further action is taken on this.

Lots of people are, broadly, Tory voters, something like half the population. I don't understand why you'd think it indicated some kind of conspiracy to have posts supportive of a particular MP who is a Tory?

I think KB actually gets a lot of general support across usual voting patterns because she is seen as being very intelligent and capable. There is something to be said for a political leader who has those qualities, even when you tend not to support their party position.

There are also a lot of floating voters. Neither Tories nor Labour are what you'd call extremist parties, normally. There isa huge amount of cross over in approach. There are many people who could plausibly ote either way, or share views of both parties and are compromising some every time they cast a ballot.

It always seems to me that when people say that it's crazy that anyone is a feminist would like KM, it's mainly because they have a tick box approach to feminism, where "feminist" policies need to be voted for no matter what their larger consequences or how poorly crafted they are; or see it as being equal to having specific views on certain issues, (for example feminists must always support total freedom on abortion at all stages of pregnancy;) or that feminists must believe the kind of state run social programs favoured by Labour are always going to be the best way to improve things for women.

The fact is that none of these things are the case. Some feminists believe them, others think differently. A person who thinks a more conservative type of fiscal policy is in the long term better for society is likely to think that's better for women too, for example. I'd also point out that conservatives often (not always, but speaking in generalities here) have more thought in types of policies related to motherhood, that don't take the view that all mothers being in work is necessarily the best approach, and many women are sympathetic to that view, and consider themselves feminists.

KB is in many ways a fairly traditional sort of conservative, and they do tend to address certain issues that are important to women but are often ignored by the left.

All of which is to say, it really should not be odd that a very smart politician with those kinds of feminist views might be seen as positive by many on FWR even if they are normally Labour voters.

Is this the only source? This Guardian article?

'The Guardian has learned of a 2019 meeting at TPP’s headquarters in which Hester spoke about an executive from another organisation, saying...'

So it's just hearsay?

He is free to clear his name in court, if he feels he's been libelled. It's not as if he can't afford it.

However you need to show reputational damage. And frankly, Tory donors don't really start with a high stock, do they ? Just look at the current crop of donors and who they are subbing.

So it's just gossip, effectively? The attributed quotes sound awful but if there isn't any evidence then this is all just pointless smearing.

It's on GB News and lots of other sites.

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/uk/sunak-tory-donor-diane-abbott-comments-racist

https://news.sky.com/story/major-tory-donor-frank-hester-apologises-to-diane-abbott-over-reprehensible-and-revolting-comments-13092903

https://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/national/24180966.tory-donor-frank-hesters-alleged-comments-racist-wrong-downing-street-says/

It seems to have been accepted as factually correct.

The chief executive of healthcare software firm The Phoenix Partnership (TPP), has admitted making “rude” comments about Ms Abbott, but claimed they had “nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”.

(From Bracknell News)

PMQs at the moment and Sunak is just whatabout-ing the whole thing...but, but, but Angela Rayner and (of course) Corbyn.

He is free to clear his name in court, if he feels he's been libelled. It's not as if he can't afford it.

However you need to show reputational damage. And frankly, Tory donors don't really start with a high stock, do they ? Just look at the current crop of donors and who they are subbing.

This is true. Most people wouldn't be in this position (being able to afford to sue for libel) though. And I do think journalistic integrity should be a bit better.

I find it disturbing that what appears to be essentially hearsay is reported as fact.

Mind you, given that men are routinely called women, even when they've committed a 98% male crime, I suppose in comparison this is minor in the obfuscation / distortion stakes.

I'm afraid I'm at the point where I simply don't believe at face value anything the BBC or Guardian reports.

Anyone who believes Badenoch will improve all women’s lives for the better is at best naive, at worst dangerously deluded.

Lol no thread is complete without a good dollop of hyperbole.