Strictly's Stacey Dooley SLAMMED by MP for her Comic Relief work
Strictly Come Dancing champion and TV documentary maker Stacey Dooley has been slammed by Labour MP David Lammy, who has criticised her for her trip to Uganda for Comic Relief.
The 31-year-old investigative reporter had travelled to Africa to film a documentary for the charity but the MP for Tottenham has accused Stacey of perpetuating "tired and unhelpful stereotypes".
Stacey had shared pictures on her social media from Uganda, with one snap showing her posing with a young child while another showed her during filming ahead of Red Nose Day.
Mr Lammy, who has been the MP for the north London borough since 2010, said on Twitter that Stacey was reinforcing unhelpful stereotypes about Africa. He said: "The world does not need any more white saviours. As I've said before, this just perpetuates tired and unhelpful stereotypes. Let's instead promote voices from across the continent of Africa and have serious debate."
Mr Lammy said his issue was not personal with Stacey and that he does not question her "good motives". Instead, he said he had a problem with 'British celebrities' being flown out to Africa by Comic Relief to make films which send "a distorted image" of the continent and perpetuate "an old idea from the colonial era".
So his problem is that a charity that raises money for Africa in aid of poverty is showing us scenes of poverty in Africa? He'd rather this charity in aid of poverty show the more developed side of Africa and its culture?
That seems about as clever as raising money for London homeless by taking us on a tour of St. Pauls cathedral.
>>18429 I think his issue is that Red Nose Day tries to raise money for third worlders in poverty by showing footage of those people, the ones fundraising would directly, help rather than showing the prosperous side of African nations (even if said prosperity is down to corruption and hoarding the wealth).
Presumably he wouldn't want Children in Need to show kids affected by austerity because that would paint a distorted picture of Britain; instead of footage of children having to care for their disabled relatives we'd be shown public school kids discussing their upcoming skiing holidays or pissing on a sleeping tramp.
I think Lammy's just parotting this viewpoint a little, perhaps without the intellectual rigour to back it up. However, I do understand why it's probably quite frustrating to almost only ever see Africa portrayed as a crying mother unable to feed her kid, or otherwise General Butt-Naked eating someone or Boko Haram engaging in mass-kidnappings. I think of it like this; you know the way Americans portray English people on TV, as either tophat wearing mega-toffs or strange Franken-almalgamations of a dozen innacurate accents. Well that's always annoying, so I imagine it's much the same when Africa is show with a similarly unfair binary. Obviously that's not a one-for-one analogy so please don't read it as such. Also I don't think some people appriciate how massive and diverse Africa is. Obviously no one who passed the .gs Entrance Exam is mistaking it for a country or owt like that, but it's not as homogenous as people assume.
This headline doesn't really refect Lammy's statement of not questioing her "good motives", either, but whatever, it's only news!
If David lammy repressented or spoke for those nations at all the logical answer would be to cut all foreign aid to those countries and see if they suddenly decided they were poor again and needed saving by the white man.
But since as far as I am aware he has never seen those locations first hand and was born here I guess he has to 'check his privilege' as a ignorant middle-class cis man.
I imagine he feels a lot of insecurity in his personal identity over the inferior position of thes cultures to western ones.
Do you lads ever notice that when 'news' gets posted on these boards it is always of the type intended to elicit a "it's political correctness gone mad" type reaction?
Can the mods tell us if there is an observable pattern of who keeps posting these threads? Like with paedosciencelad on /lab/ I bet it's just the same person over and over.
>Mr Lammy, who has been the MP for the north London borough since 2010, said on Twitter that Stacey was reinforcing unhelpful stereotypes about Africa. He said: "The world does not need any more white saviours.
I have to admit I love seeing the SJW movement fuck itself in the knee like that.
And Stacey Dooley, well... I can't lie that I have a sexual preference for redheads, but the only way I'd want to have sex and/or spend time with her would be with her mouth taped shut.
>Can the mods tell us if there is an observable pattern of who keeps posting these threads?
I know that my opinions on here have been divisive in the past and have gotten me temporarily banned. But I like to think I've toned my shit down so it's tolerable.
I did not post this thread. Which leads to the disturbing conclusion that there are two of us.
this is literally a "someone said a thing on twitter" article. joy of joys.
>>18426 It's real but I'm not sure this was the best opportunity to point it out.
The biggest load of bollocks i've ever seen is white students self-funding trips out to Africa to feel good about themselves helping put up a fence or whatever. The poorer african countries are lacking in many things, but unskilled labour isn't one of them.
Further down in the article
>"Comic Relief should be helping to establish an image of African people as equals to be respected rather than helpless victims to be pitied.
So that's another thing. The way these things are framed is very rarely "These are perfectly normal human beings like you and I who need money because the world is bullshit", it's always "Give us money so we can help these helpless souls who cannot help themselves."
But I guess that's how charity works, really. If you take a distant, economistic and very cynical view, they're selling a feeling of secular salvation. You gave time or money to help the starving Africans, you're a good person. It's a product like any other. It's not dry, detached, governmental and boring, administering a foreign aid budget like it was the drain repair budget for your local council, which is usually what any serious solution is going to look like.
what i'm saying is: abolish agricultural tariffs.
>>18436 I posted the thread. There's two reasons you've noticed this:
1. I create around 90% of the threads across the site. The reason other things don't get discussed is because you fuckers won't start a thread about them. Shit or get off the pot.
2. I find it hard to create a thread about something I agree with. If I posted something about the Tories being cunts and every reply was "I agree, the Tories are being cunts" then I'd find it boring to the extreme. I've no interest whatsoever in having a thread complaining about "SJW-cucks" and the arsebackwards logic you get on the fringes, incidentally I'd say the rise in sympathising with the alt-right mentality is to do with the well documented woman problem on here rather than my threads, but I prefer threads about things that are ostensibly true because I find it more thought provoking seeing them being dismantled.
I've got a job. What you need to do is get yourself in a suitable position of authority where you can be trusted to be left to your own devices. That way you can do things like dick around on your phone, getting paid handsomely to shitpost.
>Woman problem? In what way? What kind of "woman problem"?
It has been pointed out many times on here that there are a number of posters with deeply unhealthy views on women. It has been pointed out many times on here that this place can go from quiet to a hive of activity the moment an opportunity to have a pop at women comes along. It has been noticed that these, together with posts by people with the so-called alt-right/incel mindset in general, have become more frequent.
>>18448 >get yourself in a suitable position of authority where you can be trusted to be left to your own devices. That way you can do things like dick around on your phone, getting paid handsomely to shitpost.
Are trusted, not can be.
>It has been pointed out many times on here that there are a number of posters with deeply unhealthy views on women.
Big shock. Alt right incels posting unhealthy shit on the web, and on an image board no less. Well I never. We may not be 4chan, but still.
>It has been noticed that these, together with posts by people with the so-called alt-right/incel mindset in general, have become more frequent.
Being a more niche kind of online mob among online mobs, naturally you will find them gathering in the Internet's niches more.
I'm fully aware that my own posts have also been divisive in that respect, but you will probably never hear me talk about snowflakes and Stacys. The alt right is a crock of shit, as is the whole incel thing. Personally, I think the incel mindset is much more harmful to yourself and others than the alt right school of thought, but that's just me. I think that whiny narcissistic incel manchildren who spend their sad days pointing fingers at others for their own misfortune instead of accepting self-responsibility deserve every minute of their state of being unfucked.
>>18452 >Big shock. Alt right incels posting unhealthy shit on the web, and on an image board no less. Well I never. We may not be 4chan, but still.
It never used to be tolerated here, but a few posters decided to bury their heads in the sand about it. Thankfully the mods went heavy on the banhammer when they went too far testing the waters.
>>18453 Now, now. Some alt-right lads are drowning in fanny batter.
>>18433 Ordinarily I'd agree, but I have a sneaking suspicion that our foreign aid budget is to a significant degree just a soft-power mechanism to sway things in our favour overseas. This is the only way I can make sense of the Tories forcing through a mandatory 0.7% of GDP being spent on it despite widespread opposition (in parliament at least). Maybe Lammy is smart enough to consider this, maybe not.
All the same it sounds like he's just trying to score easy points with the black electorate. Over time it's becoming more African and less Caribbean.
>So that's another thing. The way these things are framed is very rarely "These are perfectly normal human beings like you and I who need money because the world is bullshit", it's always "Give us money so we can help these helpless souls who cannot help themselves."
firstly those two statements aren't contradictory
secondly the whole reason people give them money is because they beleive they can't help themselves. If you paint the picture of africans doing an honest days toil for an honest days wage, but with all of the uncofortable realities like homophobic lynching, HIV rape, the mob justice, and wars over resorces, people aren't going to giving them aid, and they are quite likely to call for military intervention to stablise regions, because they will feel that there is no point in throwing money at the corrupt systems that exist there now.
>It has been pointed out many times on here that there are a number of posters with deeply unhealthy views on women. It has been pointed out many times on here that this place can go from quiet to a hive of activity the moment an opportunity to have a pop at women comes along. It has been noticed that these, together with posts by people with the so-called alt-right/incel mindset in general, have become more frequent.
I take this to mean you have complained about it a number of times. I think you are wrong and have yet to see any issue.
>It never used to be tolerated here, but a few posters decided to bury their heads in the sand about it. Thankfully the mods went heavy on the banhammer when they went too far testing the waters.
Incels always end up banned, though admittedly because they usually crop up in /emo/ threads telling the OPs that all women hate them.
>>18458 I think the problem stemmed from the go to advice for a lot of /emo/ threads being "avoid mental slags" which is ableist towards neurodiverse people, and misogynist too.
Doesn't this happen every year? Britain has this-or-that enjoyable cultural institution and someone has to complain about it just because. I vaguely remember the joke in Private Eye last year.
At any rate, it seems like a Labour MP should be the last one to talk about a white saviour stereotype.
Responding on Thursday, a spokesman for Comic Relief made no apologies, thanking Dooley for helping people "working with or supported by Comic Relief projects tell their own stories in their own words".
It said: "We are really grateful that Stacey Dooley, an award-winning and internationally acclaimed documentary maker, agreed to go to Uganda to discover more about projects the British people have funded there and make no apologies for this. She has filmed and reported on challenging issues all over the world, helping to put a much-needed spotlight on issues that affect people's lives daily. In her film, people working with or supported by Comic Relief projects tell their own stories in their own words. We have previously asked David Lammy if he would like to work with us to make a film in Africa and he has not responded. The offer is still open."
Brilliant. Comic Relief hire a well known documentary maker to help people in Africa tell their own stories in their own words and David Lammy, who hasn't even seen it and has refused in the past to collaborate with them, criticises them for doing exactly what he says they should be doing just because a white woman is involved.
>>18462 Very presumptive of you to think that slags are always women.
And rather intellectually dishonest of you to pretend that a)mental in this context means a strict mental definition as defined by DSM-5, and people other than you are incapable of distinguishing the 2. b)the stigma of not dating mental unhinged isn't warranted in some way.
At no point has anyone who uses the phrase made the leap that 'All women = mental slags' but I bet you have in the interest of disingenuously seeing sexism everywhere.
It is valuable constructive advice much like not sticking your hand in a fire, or poking a bear in its balls with a pointy stick. If you don't like it teach mental slags to stop being a danger and then people will stop advising others to avoid them.
>>18448 You've been told repeatedly as well, by the mods even, that when that happens the woman haters get banned.
What it sounds like is that you've come to a conclusion about this place and you make threads to try and provoke the correct response from the userbase to support that conclusion, which is supremely sad.
Derailing your own thread into a discussion about crypto women hating on the site for no foreseeable reason on the other hand...
We were getting on here just fine before you showed up to tell us how to think and 'start every new thread' the irony of the whole thing is that you have a white saviour complex.
>>18477 There's no need to have a teary
Just because someone is being a little sneery
So stop rubbing your eyes until they're bleary
Join in and act a little leery
Everyone loves a cunt-off, in theory
Comic Relief was ‘TV ad for Corbyn’: BBC is accused of breaching neutrality by ‘peddling socialist nonsense’ on Red Nose Day and making ‘absurd’ claims about poverty in Britain
The BBC was tonight accused of allowing its Comic Relief TV appeal to become ‘an advert for Jeremy Corbyn’.
Tory MPs reacted with fury at this year’s Red Nose Day broadcast, lambasting BBC bosses for peddling ‘socialist nonsense’ and making ‘absurd’ claims about the scale of poverty in Britain. During the six-hour broadcast on Friday night, celebrities painted a bleak picture of hunger, deprivation and homelessness in the UK, which MPs say amounted to a political attack on Theresa May’s Government.
Under its Royal Charter, the BBC has a strict obligation to remain politically neutral, but in a series of controversies that rocked its flagship charity appeal:
• Comedian Lenny Henry was heavily criticised for likening hunger in the UK with the malnutrition endured by millions in the developing world in the late 1980s;
• Chart-topping superstar Ed Sheeran was accused of hypocrisy after making a heartfelt plea about the plight of homeless people – after he sought to install railings to stop people sleeping rough outside his £8 million London home;
• Oscar-winning actress Olivia Colman urged viewers to support a refugee charity which has made repeated attacks on the Government and is run by the daughter of a key ally of Jeremy Corbyn;
• Donations to the appeal fell, with £8 million less raised this year than during the previous event in 2017;
• Viewing figures were also down, with 600,000 fewer people watching the show this year.
Just minutes into this year’s BBC1 broadcast, Mr Henry made an appeal for FareShare, a charity which collects food which would otherwise be thrown away and hands it out to food banks and women’s refuges. Sir Lenny, who famously recorded a film in Ethiopia for the first Red Nose Day in 1988, warned that ‘real hunger’ is ‘hitting a huge number of people in this country’. He added: ‘I have been talking about global poverty since Comic Relief began but if you told me back then that I would be here today asking you to reach into your pockets so we could help feed children in the UK, one of the richest countries in the world, I wouldn’t have believed you. But that is where we are and that is exactly what I am doing.’
His comments were last night branded ‘complete rubbish’ and ‘socialist nonsense’ by Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory Work and Pensions Secretary. ‘That statement is frankly, simply not true,’ he said. ‘That is an absurd exaggeration and clearly should not be used in Comic Relief advertisements.’
FareShare claims that one in eight people ‘go hungry in the UK’, equivalent to more than 8.25 million people. But according to the latest figures from the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation, 2.2 million people in the UK – around 3.4 per cent – are ‘severely food insecure’, which means they are ‘experiencing hunger’.
Tory MP Nigel Evans said Sir Lenny’s film ‘paints a horrific picture’ of Britain, adding: ‘This is an advert for Jeremy Corbyn and his brand of politics that will alienate a lot of people. This is a Party Political Broadcast and that is incredibly dangerous. I know they want to raise funds but distorting the picture in order to do so is not clever and it runs the risk of dragging the BBC and the charity into politics, which is somewhere they really do not want to go.’
>>18705 Comic Relief are a busted flush. It's the worst kind of look-at-meeee charity. They make themselves look slightly more efficient than your average charity because they try and demand anyone who works for them gives time/resources for free - most decent charities pay their way. People who don't know any better fall for this antic because they are sucked into the whole do-a-lot-of-work-for-charidee-mate idea and think they're going to hang about with famous people and be on telly, for a day.
They don't raise that much money, they certainly don't do that much good work with it - and the money would be better sent to actual NGOs and organisations who are experts in the field.
Also, telethons such as this don't raise anything like as much money, or get similar awareness or traffic numbers, as a decent online campaign. It's a very old, tired, model of fundraising.
>>18710 He's probably the lad that applied for the BBC without realising he had no chance as a straight white male. We told you to pretend that you were partial to a bit of cock, we bloody told you.
>>18709 I think Comic Relief is more a national institution at this point but one that has been in terminal decline along with television generally. Growing up it always seemed like having a bit of a laugh while collecting money from people who wouldn't ordinarily think to donate but from what I've seen this year was shit. What ever happened to Spider-Plant Man?
>>18705 >But according to the latest figures from the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation, 2.2 million people in the UK – around 3.4 per cent – are ‘severely food insecure’, which means they are ‘experiencing hunger’.
Oh, well that's alright then.
There's too much choice on telly. Back when there were only three or four channels, most TV was produced by people making an honest effort to do their best work. Nobody really worried about viewing figures or what might be on the other side. Now that there are a million other options, most producers are (consciously or unconsciously) pandering to an imaginary lowest-common-denominator. It's a cynical and insincere way of making TV that an increasingly large proportion of people can see straight through.
They should have had a marathon stream of some old N64 games, Glover is more in vogue than tired sketch comedy at this point, and no one remembers Glover except me. But more importantly the decline in donations more or less lines up with the flatlining of wages so that's what I'm chalking it up to.
Although, I do wonder if video games could make a return to the telly at some point, or would they just end up being worse than what you can find online? I can't remember seeing anything dedicated to games since Guru Larry had a telly show, which no one remembers, except me.
>>18711 The interview hasn't happened yet; it's this week - I'm coming down with the sickness but I hope it's just a small blip or I'll be fucked off. I've spent ages preparing for this.
>>18720 If "The Gay Fever" is a heaving cough, temperature, horrendous levels of acid reflux, and crushing headache, then alright.
So, that's this interview fucking ruined tomorrow. We can't let me be having anything nice here, can we? With every day I'm becoming more convinced I committed some sort of sin in a past life and this is my punishment. To have shit ripped from me just as it's starting to look good.
I was walking round there yesterday and I obviously walked by the cottaging hot spot as I got some quite awkward looks from the random groups of men who were just hanging around the woodland in the twilight.
