Crick complained – wrongly – no cameras at Corbyn speech. There was no Crick there either

On Wednesday evening, as Jeremy Corbyn prepared to give his landmark speech on Thursday morning in Edinburgh about the remaking of the media landscape he will undertake in power, mainstream journalists attacked the supposed fact that no cameras would be allowed at the speech and that the venue would distribute clips after the event.

Channel 4 political journalist Michael Crick was prominent among them, using the opportunity to criticise the point of the speech by contrasting it with the (not true) news:

crick cameras.png

In fact, the whole event was live-streamed in a far more democratic – and, yes, ‘people in power’-challenging – way, on YouTube for anyone to access who wished to.

To judge by Mr Crick’s complaint – which he subsequently semi-corrected – you could be forgiven for assuming he considered it essential viewing. But that assumption is undermined by the fact that Mr Crick was some four hundred miles away in London.

As Corbyn outlined his plans for a historic remaking on the UK’s media landscape, Crick was captured by a sharp-eyed SKWAWKBOX reader – watching not-quite Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab droning on about the possibility of extra credit card fees in a no-deal Brexit scenario:

crick raab 230818

In case you think that’s not the Raab event, here’s a shot taken from behind the woman in the light suit that the BBC published:

raab rev

Mr Crick’s original claim sparked quite a few criticisms on Twitter, with some attacking its veracity while others pointed out that in the ‘party leader not facing the media stakes’, Corbyn’s not even in the same frame as his Tory counterpart:

prole 1984sub crick


The ‘MSM’ have been in full-on attack mode today attempting to dismiss Corbyn’s radical plans to democratise our media and protect the UK public from undue influence by vested interests.

You’d almost think they were worried.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Here’s Crick interviewing Ava Etemadzadeh about the allegations she made (in The Telegraph) regarding Kelvin Hopkins. Note how the she goes straight from what she claims happened initially – ie the ‘crotch-rubbing’ incident (on November 12th, 2014) – to what she claims happened several months later when – having arranged it in the preceeding weeks – she meets up with Kelvin Hopkins at the Palace of Westminster for a tour. Well, I mean, she was hardly gonna do an interview in which a journalist asks her why she went to the Palace of Westminster to meet up with the man who some three months earlier had rubbed his crotch against her, which she found “revolting”. THAT would have exposed her allegations for the dispicable and vile lies that they were, which would have been counter to Crick’s job as one of the Establishment’s black propagandists:


    And Jon Pienaar did exactly the same thing in his interview with her for the BBC the same day. And yes, she was wearing the same outfit (with her hair done the same way), specially bought for the occasion.

    And you can be absolutely certain that both Crick and Pienaar had seen Kelvin’s statement AND the emails SHE sent HIM at the time! And note how the interview is constructed in such a way so as to make viewers think and believe that ALL these allegations were reported to Winterton a couple of years earlier when in fact the only complaint Ava Etemadzadeh made – albeit ten months after he sent it to her AND three months after JC was elected leader! – was the “inappropriate” email.

    And THAT tells you all you need to know!

    1. Allan, I thought you might be interested in this extraordinary tweet from the accuser of Kelvin Hopkins which suggests links to other current stories. It seems possible that Jeremy Corbyn’s foreign policies in the ME are the real target:

      Ava Etemadzadeh‏ @avaet0890 Feb 26
      Fuck the Islamic Republic of Iran. This regime is responsible for the death of my mother and sister and jailing my father for his political views. Yet @jeremycorbyn kisses their arses, promotes a sex pest to his Shadow Cabinet and now wants to reinstate an antisemite to the party

      Ironically, as Skwawkbox reported, the two MPs who have made the most objections to Iranian human rights abuses, are Jeremy Corbyn and Kelvin Hopkins. However, both would strenuously oppose taking military action against Iran.

  2. And here’s Crick – along with David Mellor – being dishonest and disingenuous in an LBC interview with Ken Livingstone:

    1. First time I’ve seen this – didn’t watch past the critical part.

      Crick: “On the historic fact, I mean, I’ve looked at the book you’re quoting and there may be… you may be right on that… but there are times in life when situations are so sensitive… blah blah blah.”

      “You may be right on that” was Ken’s opening – which he missed – and I bet he’s still kicking himself.

      I’d have instantly jumped so far down Crick’s throat with, “MAY be right? Where PRECISELY is the DOUBT in your mind? (the ‘YOU FUCKER’ is implied) Which EXACT words are unclear to you?” Crick would have had no choice but to back down.
      The rest of the interview would have taken a very different direction.

      If Ken hadn’t wanted to be quite so aggressive he could have just handed Mellor a copy of the book with the relevant section marked and asked him to read the highlighted part aloud.
      If Mellor refused Ken could have read it out himself and Mellor’s biased intent would have been clear to everyone.
      Or just publish the relevant section for everybody to read FFS.

      1. Or he could have just referred him to Benjamin Netanyu’s claim that it wasn’t Hitelr or the Nazis who were responsible for the Hollocaust. The remarkable aspect of all this hysteria is how some who really know how mendacious the media is, like Mellor, are still led by the nose into repeating utter claptrap. Frightening.

      2. Sammy, you have to shut these people down on the spot – give them no way out. Mellor would have hit right back with “We’re not talking about Netanyahu’s statements, we’re discussing yours.”

        Incidentally, if the interview wasn’t being broadcast live I’d have refused it in Ken’s place – professional media whores don’t broadcast stuff that humiliates them if they can avoid it.

        If that taxi driver hadn’t recorded Mellor’s puerile blustering rant the Mellor narrative would have won the day.

    2. And on a slightly different note, the following is from an article in the Sun a couple of weeks ago:

      Jennifer Gerber, of Labour Friends of Israel, said: “We discovered he engaged in theories questioning Israel’s right to exist.

      “Now it’s comparisons to Nazi occupation of Europe.”

      His outburst appears to breach a global IHRA anti-Semitism code barring likening Israel to the Nazis.

      Ms Gerber said his opposition to full adoption of the code “appears driven by his appalling statements”.


      The Mail also ran with it under the headline:

      ‘Corbyn in fresh anti-Semitism storm as 2013 video emerges of him comparing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank to the Nazi takeover of Europe’

    1. rob, forgive me for saying so, but if skwawkbox hadn’t brought it to our attention, I’m sure there are many of us who wouldn’t have got to learn of this particular bit of disinformation…… and Crick works for Channel 4 News now, not the BBC.

      1. OOPS thank you , but having given up on watching any TV and no licence for the last 4 yrs or more ( my only effective protest against BBC and MSM TV ) , it is a bit difficult to know which smarmy reporter belongs to wot TV station .
        Never mind ,, footin mouth comes to mind 😉

  3. The problem with staff elections is that management appoint staff from their own class & who share their ideologies. The BBC & Channel 4 are staffed by like-minded clones & often are inter-changeable. Both organisations exceed quota levels on race & sexual orientation, with parity on gender, but not @ senior management levels. The one criteria that the Neo-Liberals refuse to acknowledge is social class because, as Blair pointed out “the class war is over” . The idea of a class struggle is old Labour, It will be interesting to see how a new definition of working class is defined, judging by the ‘pigs ear’ of an attempt to define that which cannot be spoken.

    1. Which is why I don’t believe internal elections are going to solve the problem any time soon – not when the internal ‘electorate’ has been rammed to bursting point with Tories.
      If there were any Labour sympathisers left at the BBC or C4 there’d be incriminating recordings & out-takes all over the internet.

Leave a Reply to steve richards Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: