Several members backed by various left groups, but only two places to win – which two should Labour members unite behind?
Left Labour groups have failed to agree a unified ‘slate’ of candidates for the important by-election for two positions on Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC), resulting in four main candidates among those who have passed the nomination threshold, one who outstripped some of the group-backed candidates for nominations – and a likelihood of a split left vote when the ballot opens later this month.
The need for a unified slate is clear, so the SKWAWKBOX is running a member poll to assess the support for each candidate:
- Lauren Townsend has been backed by CLPD and Momentum;
- Cecile Wright is backed by CLPD;
- Drennan is backed by Momentum;
- Jo Bird is backed by Jewish Voice for Labour and LRC before she was suspended by Labour . She was quickly reinstated by the party
- Trish Williams was not backed by any of the major left groups, but received more nominations than some candidates who were
Links to the candidates’ statements are below:
Lauren Townsend 140 nominations
Cecile Wright (16 nominations)
Jo Bird 111 nominations (process ended early by suspension/reinstatement)
Leigh Drennan (27 nominations)
Trish Williams (32 nominations)
Which two of the candidates would you want to see on the left ‘slate’ to unite the left-wing member vote? The poll will close at 10pm on Monday 17 February. Candidate order has been randomised.
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 or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. 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.
Where’s Laura Pidcock? I understand she’s been nominated by a number of CLPs. In her absence, Bird and Townsend. Plus Keith Hussein for BAME rep.
FYI
https://twitter.com/LauraPidcock/status/1227918631541133312
Important to identify the Labour First/ Progress candidates? So we can avoid the spin.
Already done a while ago: https://skwawkbox.org/2020/01/17/as-right-plots-to-retake-control-of-vital-nec-labour-members-must-avoid-these-two-candidates/
Will give it another spin when voting opens.
Who’s arsed?
The bliarites will get their way whatever and the antisemitism accusations aren’t gonna stop anytime soon, even when bliarism is fully established again.
And NO amount of jo bird circlejerk will escape that fact. FUBAR.
Exactly Toffee. It is FUBAR.
I saw this elsewhere on the tubes, and thought it was relevant here. It’s from 70s Berlin, and was a foundational statement.
„Wir wollen nicht ein Stück vom Kuchen, wir wollen die ganze Bäckerei.“
If you don’t control the entire bakery, your best hope is for a (small) token piece of cake…
Who can you really trust as the baker? Those who aren’t already corrupted will face an onslaught and or a forced conversion.
Bleak…
The best is for the bakerty to be under workers’ control. The worst is someone like Lansman cooking the books
The strategy of Progress, Labour First, “ moderates “, “ centrists “ and the Blairites is to firstly, use what ever smears, lies, half truths and propaganda to paint themselves as the saviours of the party. In their words” to get our party back”.
Secondly, they can only achieve this by suppression of votes, creating apathy and wheeling out the usual cadre of suspects within and externally in order to achieve their objectives. Which will be trying to go for the holy grail of the mythical centre, shifting the party on to right wing policies whilst trying to pacify the left with some watered down socialist policies.
Naturally, the thought police of the valiant fighters in the vanguard to fight the mythical AS will endure obedience. Unfortunately, unless the members are willing to engage in combatting these people masquerading as democratic socialist Labour Party members we will have a New Labour mk2 Party.
If Conference is the pinnacle of Labour Party democracy wouldn’t democracy be enhanced by submitting matters to the maximum possible number of members as they arise rather than once a year?
A permanent online Congress perhaps, with questions & discussion before votes where time permits?
Security and off-line user issues are easily accommodated.
Maybe the number of activists on the doorsteps might also increase with more frequent involvement online?
No faction would be able to claim support it didn’t have either.
Get behind Trish Willims our candidate in Berwick upon Tweed in GE, solid socialist and JC supporter,
Berwick nominated Jo Bird,
Regards
Well – I’m constitutionally opposed to ‘slates’. I want facts and real background about ideas and priorities (within the bounds of realism about the role). I don’t vote on the basis of sectarian interest groups.
Well – Jo Bird passes for me as a given because of her record and unashamed links to JVL, even though she did apologize to those who deserved to be offended 🙂
As to the others – what a bunch of anodyne hot air in those statements. They give nothing to go on. We can all tick ‘motherhood and sliced bread for all’.
And note the complete absence of the most burning question for the NEC – the failure to implement the Chakraborty report (or something reflecting its principles), to unadopt the IHRA document and get a system of compliance in place that has judicial credibility and the characteristics of transparency and fairness. (And, incidentally, puts Lansman out on the limb where he belongs).
Where’s Graham Durham another popular rank and file left candidate ?
He’s not on Labour’s candidate/nomination list.
Townsend and Drennan are in wrong place viewing with Firefox, Skwawk. But I think most people can work that out.
I agree with ‘RH’. Not a great deal to go on by reading their statements.
Watched RLB on Marr, not great
Latest spin against RLB and Labour is their position on trans rights, sort of sums up how MSM and toilet papers work, you can see the headlines coming a mile off
To counter it you need a 3 word catch all followed immediately by an attack on cheap and nasty Tory party
Oh what a tangled web when trying to accommodate BoD 10 and JLM, walked straight into JC is an anti semite then
This is what happens to spineless and gutless politicians who dont actually believe in much now JC’s gone
I watched in disbelief as RBL washed her hands of Palestine.She totally accepts BoD 10 demands & the IHRA definition of AS. She stated “anyone who says the State of Israel is a racist endeavour is anti-Semitic”. Labour Party members are being told to ignore a self evident truth……..’THE STATE OF ISRAEL IS A RACIST ENDEAVOUR’. She should be expelled from the Party.
Steve Richard’s
Unless she gets real and starts talking English to the members then Starmer will win
If you can talk trans rights and freedom of movement why on earth can you not talk ‘vexatious claims of anti semitism ‘
Just to return to the leadership election, today’s Observer gives us a clear and chilling warning of just what is at stake here.
One MP: “The question is, if Starmer wins, what will he do then?
Who he appoints to the shadow cabinet will be the first big signal?”
I quite agree.
One former minister gives his wish list:
Shadow Home Secretary: Yvette Cooper
Shadow Chancellor: Rachel Reeves
Shadow Foreign Secretary: Hilary Benn
There, now don’t say we have not been warned!!!
Look on the bright side – he hasn’t appointed anyone yet – paricularly Lansman to any post. Now that would be scary. 🙂
Tony
He is also promising to bring Cockwombles who left the party and disappeared up their own arses
Pay off and reinstate junior Cockwombles behind Panorama Drama
FFS
NB The Progress/Labour First candidates not to vote for are Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan
I was at a local CLP recently were Gurinder Singh Josan along with the Progress Leader Nathan Yeowell were part of a troika of right wing dissidents intent on blackguarding anything and everything in relation to the leader of the democratic socialist Labour Party and the policies of the party.
The constant theme was reclaiming “ my party” besides of course the artificial indignation whipped up by them about fabricated AS smears whilst at the same time denying that BOD was a Tory controlled organisation trying to impose their views on the Party. When I pointed out to them that the JVL and the Jewish Socialists fervently rejected the BOD and all its works, the next tact was smearing them with unsubstantiated half truths and lies. GSJ in particular tried to paint them as some type of sect. They repeatedly were in denial about the failures of NL and the achievements of the democratic socialist Labour in the 2017 GE.
It should come as no surprise as to the intents and purposes of these two and the narrow little sects that they represent!
Not many takers for the poll so far! I assume that like myself, most of us don’t have much idea about the views of the candidates.
Could Skwawkbox put a series of questions to them on our behalf?
To start with:
1) Fairness and due process is non-existant in the LP at the moment, would you therefore try to ensure that, on the basis no one should be a judge in their own cause, no member of the JLM or LFI should be involved in disciplinary procedings.
2) Do you agree that prior to any decision to suspend/expel, members should be given full details of the charges against them and an opportunity to respond?
3) Do you support open selection?
4) Would you try to prevent those such as Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna, who briefed against Jeremy Corbyn, from rejoining the Party?
5) Would you support Chris Williamson if he wished to rejoin the Party?
6) Would you campaign for Labour to ditch the IHRA definition?
7) Do you reject the attempt by the BoD to influence the LP with their demands?
That would produce a lot of rotting teeth with the amount of fudge that would emerge.
BTW – an interesting balanced and non-hysterical, plus and minus assessment of Starmer in the Observer :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny
No doubt the constitutionally hysterical will shout ‘Guardian!!!!!!!!!!’ etc. etc. – but to the more rational, it’s worth a read, given the fair chance of him getting elected.
@RH bugger all in the Guardian piece about Starmers membership of the Trilateral Commission…
That membership means he isn’t here for any of us
Does Sqwawbox understand what “clockwise” means?
Do you?
Townsend and Leigh Drennan are in wrong place viewing with Firefox, Skwawk. But I think most people can work that out.
The Guardian and the Observer group were originally part of the Scott Trust, however, they have since been taken over by a company registered in the Bahamas and is now a Ltd company.
The governing board comprises of mainly ex financial and legal types with Viner as the solitary “ journalist “ on the board. Much of its revenue comes from advertising by among others the Saudi government, international banks etc.
Media Lens, a social investigative news site has written some very extensive and informative investigations into the so called “ Liberal newspaper”. I would suggest that anyone who wishes to give any weight what the Guardian writes about either in its reporting of political or foreign policy events reads the numerous reports from Media Lens, Off Guardian, John Pilger or Jonathan Cook about it.
You are, in essence, absolutely right. The Groan lost its soul a while back when Viner took over and got rid of proper investigative journalists and succumbed to the arm up the back from the security services. The most obvious symptom of this is the coverage of the ‘antisemitism’ scam and the wider rubbishing of Corbyn – all intensely part of the right-wing MSM narrative.
That said, the current ownership knows on which side it’s bread is buttered, so there tends to be a range of credible and interesting articles that are not part of its propaganda thrust. You just have to discriminate – as you do with Skwawkbox’s particular obsessions.
Unfortunately, the range of credible articles is very limited and employ the usual trick as Chomsky explained of having a vigorous debate within a very narrow band.
Moreover, they try to give it a veneer of balance, yet, apart from one or two acceptable columnists the vast majority of the Guardian/ Observer political, foreign policy out is skewed against the democratic socialist Labour Party.
Evidence, observe the total assault on Jeremy Corbyn and the Party by the usual culprits. Freedland, Cohen, Toby Helm etc.
“the vast majority of the Guardian/ Observer political, foreign policy out is skewed”
As you’ll note, I have no disagreement with you there. Nor have I an argument about the regular columnists, typified by Freedland in particular – an arrogant consructor of mythology tied in to the right wing Jewish Chronicle.
And I have constantly noted here that the ‘antisemitism’ scam is a black hole where *none* of their commentators goes near investigative truth-telling.
My point is that is within these massive caveats, there is still; stuff worth reading from, for instance, more independent journalists like Gary Younge and, strangely, Simon Jenkins on a good contrarian day.
The paper is essentially schizophrenic and has mainly a cosy metropolitan bent.
But, yes, you have to keep your judgment scepticism alive. But that scepticism cuts both ways. I apply it to The Morning Star, too ::-)
I worry that your poll is going to be misleading and distorting in its effect.
My reason for dong so is we all know there is not a link betwen the number of nomination and how members will vote. Look at Andy Burnham’s number of nominations compared to jeremy in 2015
This time is also distorted by the coincidence ( and I mean co incen
above post incomplete
I worry that your poll is going to be misleading and distorting in its effect.
My reason for dong so is we all know there is not a link betwen the number of nomination and how members will vote. Look at Andy Burnham’s number of nominations compared to jeremy in 2015
This time is also distorted by the coincidence ( and I mean co incidience literally) of the leadyers namination meetings and the leaders nominations.
There were many split nominations either such as Bird and Baxter from the same CLP or left candidates from CLPs that nominated Starmer
Also the number of nominations made before it was clear there would not be a left slate in an effort to get people on the slate is significant.
But my many worry is that a vote ie poll between just these 5 could distort the answer and distort how lefts vote
This could even advantage the right
Would you consider starting the poll again including all left candidates who have the support of any left organisation or self organisation ?
Sadly, with 4 days to go until ballots land, no process that includes everyone is going to give members any useful steer, some filtering was essential based on popularity already expressed.
The ballot for the slate for the full 9 places in the summer will be open and include all on the left who want to be considered.
Do you believe that AS is a serious problem within the Labour party?If you answer yes or any other fudge,then you are out of order with the vast majority of the Labour party membership and you are either a liar or totally compromised by the establishment.In answering anthing other than No you are unfit to be an MP ,councillor or hold any office within the Labour party.Leadership should be excluded to all the remaining candidates.But in the saner world the disillusioned membership will leak away…Nobody including the leader of the Labour party are listening and have themselves thrown the towel in the ring just lik me. I Salute anyone who carrys on and fights for truth inside the democratic socialist Labour party. Squawkbox have no option to exclude all comments if only to protect the membership from the witchunt and themselves from whoever is pulling the strings inside the Labour party.
The whole strategy of the various right wing minority malcontents is thwart the majority of the membership by a myriad of smear, lies, distortion, propaganda and other underhanded tactics they can use. This has been evident for many years which culminated in the disastrous manoeuvres by them to create this GE defeat for Labour. The next stage of course has been to limit the potential candidates for leadership by these shackles of fabricated AS and tie it to kowtowing to the BOD. Of course the hope is that the majority of the Labour members will either swallow this or resign. However, as JC has demonstrated the Party does not live by the leader alone. Apathy is the greatest enemy of the democratic socialist Labour Party.
Joseph OKEEFE “Squawkbox have no option to exclude all comments if only to protect the membership from the witchunt and themselves from whoever is pulling the strings inside the Labour party.”
That’s a very strange comment! Why should Skwawkbox exclude any comment which is not slanderous or a call to commit violence? How does the LP know who made the comment and if the ‘names’ are genuine?
In any case, contributors may already be expelled or excluded or don’t give a damn if the LP takes action.
“the Party does not live by the leader alone”
That is true – it contradicts the notion of ‘democratic’. The idolisation of Corbyn – who I consistently supported and admired – was in some quarters somewhat emetic.
“Apathy is the greatest enemy”
It’s one factor. But another IME is that a lot of members in mid-career and family genuinely don’t have a lot of spare resource to devote to active politics.
There’s also the delusion on the left that the majority of members are replicants. They aren’t – they cover quite a range of specific attitudes. There are also assumptions floating around about the electorate that are politically illiterate. Scotland should have been a warning.
… and I would still say that the *greatest* enemy is misinformation and lack of the ability to cut through it.
Apathy is always the greatest factor because you only have to look at the USA where it’s in most extreme. Only 50% of the total electorate bother to vote and many of them are from the poorest sections of American society. Compare that attitude to the civil rights days under the brilliant leadership of Martin Luther King and you can see immediately the results of apathy and despair. They have the view that their is essence no difference between the parties, which is true both main parties in the USA are wings of the business party which controls it.
In much the same fashion many people became apathetic towards NL as their majorities continuied to fall from over 13,000,000 to scarcely 8.5,000,000 by which time they had lost 250,000 members and 143 seats.
I agree many don’t have time to devote being active members non the less they can still make their voices heard. Hmm, I have scarcely come across “ the delusion on the left that the majority of members are replicants”. I have been involved in politics, trade unionism since I was in my teens and am now an old codger. Yet, I have rarely met many people on the left who speak as though they are part of a Borg Collective.
Unfortunately, the notion that most of the people of the U.K. are not susceptible to disinformation in politics does not stand up to scrutiny. If you study the studies by the London School of Economics, Birbeck college, University of London, Cardiff University, Glasgow University etc, they prove beyond any doubt how the MSM distort, dissemble and dissuade people in political matters.
Nye Bevan, made a statement many years ago “ How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political power to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics….” .
Scotland was the result of a death by a thousand cuts by New Labour, for example a very good friend, who was a very active diehard Labour member, said “ I know longer recognised Labour as a Labour Party”. He is now a member of the SNP as many former Labour activists and members are. Or another example, from the youngest SNP Westminster MP, Mhari Black, “ I didn’t leave Labour, Labour left me”
Apathy, disillusionment, despair and disinformation run together but one follows the other!
Re: Martin Luther King
Little did James Earl Ray know when he escaped from prison that it was to enable him to be framed for the forthcoming assassination of Martin Luther King.
After the assassination, he was in prison awaiting trial when Houston attorney Percy Foreman offered to represent him. Little did Ray know of Foreman’s close links to Lyndon Johnson. Foreman then tricked him into a plea bargain to avoid execution.
After being sentenced to 99 years in prison, Ray realised he had been tricked and wrote to the judge to withdraw his plea and to request a trial.
Can you guess what happened next?
The judge, Preston Battle, died of a heart attack.
In 1975, it was revealed that the CIA had developed a gun which fired a tiny dart that caused heart attacks but would not show up in an autopsy.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/cia-heart-attack-gun
RH, the example of Gary Younge illustrates precisely my point about the veneer of being even handed. Yes, Gary is a fine writer but in a very small minority in comparison to the majority of the writers at the Guardian/Observer who are not.
John Pilger and Jonathan Cook, both former journalists wrote extensively about how they were alienated and squeezed out of it. There are many more former journalists who have voiced their concerns about this paper.
You only have to read the : undying support it gave to the illegal war in Iraq, the invasion of Libya, the proclamation of Juan Guaidó as de facto president of Venezuela, the absolute biased reporting about Venezuela, the use of foreign mercenaries armed, financed and supplied by Saudi Arabia, many of the Gulf States, Israel and NATO to invade Syria. Not forgetting of course the Guardian/ Observers reports about the fabricated nerve gas attacks in Ghouta.
. Furthermore, if you read Marina Hyde, Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman, Luke Harding, Simon Tisdall etc, they skew, distort and push through disinformation not only about the Labour Party but also the abysmal treatment of the political prisoner, Julian Assange, the White Helmets and so on.
In order to reach some kern of balanced reporting, it’s necessary to wade through so much almost blatant propaganda. This argument could be applied in equal measure to the Times, Daily Telegraph and so. The Guardian is an arm of the establishment and always has been throughout its history.
Furthermore, in recent years it has become blatantly obvious even to the most diehard. What also is self evident is the increased censorship within the comments section which Media Lens, Off Guardian have written extensively about.
Critical analysis is always the most important attribute to have when analysing texts,. However, when you have to wade through so much propaganda, to find even a scintilla of truth within the Guardian/ Observer publications , it seems scant reward for what is revealed in it.
I think you’ll find that I’ve not disagreed with any of this – and am perfectly aware of the history of the departure of many proper journalists after Viner’s accession.
And nor am I ignorant of the censoring of comments – I’ve been banned myself for taking the piss over their claims that their ‘journalism can change the story’, as well as truth-telling about ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
All I’m saying is that in a media desert, there are still pools of water to be found in the Groan, if sparse. I’m not defending it as a whole.
The analogy would be what can be found on the Beeb if you ignore their contaminated formal News and Current Affairs output.
I found it is better to read around the subject at hand via social media. There are some very good informative sites from Off Guardian, Mint News, Consortium News, Media Lens, Open Democracy, Craig Murray and so on. Then wade through the Guardian to see if there is any smidgen of truth which they are writing about in a swarm of half truth, distortion and disinformation. It takes time to do this.
Unfortunately, many people don’t have time or the inclination to do this and frequently only read what is in the Guardian/Observer.
Therefore, if this is the case, it is better to avoid it. Again, it requires cross referencing when watching anything on the BBC. For example, the disgraceful program about AS in the Labour. I wonder how people who still believe it to be an impartial broadcaster have swallowed it in its entirety.
You illustrate my point exactly.
The mockumentary about the AS scam was a classic example of biased tenth rate propagandised churnalism.
But – there was also the documentary about Stephen Ward which perfectly illustrated the fact of establishment manipulation of the media, and was very relevant to recent events.
You just have to be picky and keep your wits about you – and although there are good sites on the internet, the same applies. ‘Off Guardian’, for instance isn’t uniformly reliable, and you have to be aware of conspiracy theories masking the actual conspiracies.
My checks and balances probably come more from detailed and reputable printed sources rather than the airwaves or the daily/monthly press.
Good article in the Canary and Labour’s new firey mp Sultana has been having a go at the Tory mps and bullingdon boy Johnson.It seems nearly half of the Tory mps went to independent fee paying schools The Labour party has 14percent of mps who went to the apartheid education schools and Sultana his not impressed with either.I wonder what will happen if our knight Starmer becomes leader,and Sultana is ..still slagging off the poshboys.?…Maybe he’s a little biased on the subject .
Yes, she made a very good maiden speech in Parliament attacking the Bullingdon Bully. No doubt, Progress, Labour First and the thought police in the valiant fighters in the vanguard against AS will scouring all of her past tweets to dredge up some fabricated racist slur!
Who owns the Labour Party
Who pays for the Labour Party
What’s break even if we split the party and get rid of Blairites,
Cost in fact we are going to lose London HQ anyway and move closer to red wall
When it comes to union donations how does Labour party protect them, stop them going elsewhere
After watching RLB I have little faith
My only theory given Mccluskey/Unite support is that if RLB does not win and we start to go backwards rapidly then the party will split, rather than lose 300,000 members and 5 years progress
Then it’s a fight over who gets to keep the name
OT again, sorry. Today’s “BBC licence fee: Tory MPs warn No 10 against fight”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51530752?ns
The thrust of this is that supposedly the BBC is under attack from No. 10:
“More than 100,000 people have signed a petition calling for an end to “political attacks” on the BBC and for politicians to support the role the BBC “plays in independently holding the government to account” says the BBC.”
Has anyone here seen the BBC holding the Tories to account lately?
Just another right wing con – No. 10 pretends to threaten BBC, people defend the BBC against No.10 and any accusation that the BBC is the Tories’ main propaganda arm won’t be believed.
If Labour complains the BBC is then “under attack from all sides.”
Cumminge’s stink is all over this.
“Cumming’s stink is all over this.”
Indeed it is. But I am amazed how gullible some on ‘the left’ are about how this works and what the solution is i.e privatisation. Like Brexit – it’s another cross-eyed response to a Tory trap.
David McNivan….Political attacks on the BBC by Tory Mps?.ITs getting nearly as ridiculous as the AS scam..!IThought it was the Beeb what won it,and they are lucky to have had so many Torys inside the state broadcasting corporation.to win it for them…Even the heartlands couldn’t fall for this one?…Then again???
BBC are this years odds on favourites for the Darwin award
They chose to sleep with Uncle Festa and the cheap and nasty Tory party
But I’m a Democrat so would increase the fee, make it means tested and give every licence holder free broadband
Then go through it like a dose of salts before turning it into a John Lewis style partnership
Invoice in the post
Tories get their revenge in first? The ‘Liberal’ Left (aka Guardian; Channel 4 & BBC) are mostly concerned with ‘identity politics’ rather than ‘ the class struggle. They despise Donald Trump & Boris Johnson & would prefer David Cameron as Prime Minister.
Bojo is often mocked on PSB, as is his chum Donald, but attacking the BBC & threatening to remove its broadcasting license will make control much easier as s/he who pays the fiddler calls the tune. Smears & Moral Panics against Socialism in the Labour Party is totally acceptable. even the Guardian agrees. Anti-Semitism? If Starmer or RBJ become leader, it will be placed on the back burner in case Socialism ever again raises its working class head.
The EHRC Report will make interesting reading, just prior to IHRA definition of anti-Semitism also being accepted by the Gov’t (local & central); Police; Judiciary; MSM & Educational establishments…….anti-Semitism will become a hate crime in law & criticism of Israel & its genocide will be silenced.
How long will it be before this government make it illegal or anti-Semitic to support BDS against Israel?
Governments such as the UK or the USA can sanction whoever they wish but when a private citizen wants to carry out their democratic right to help correct an injustice, it soon becomes illegal in the eyes of right wing authoritarian governments such as ours.
The up side is that if/when such totally obscene and illogical distortions of the term ‘antisemitism get into the courts, then any government will get tied in knots.
The main thing that needs to be watched is any populist fascist assaults on Judicial Review and Human Rights.
What is clear – and the major problem – is that the knowledge and awareness of the electorate is at a massive low point following the decline of journalism and the media.
RH, if you read about the CIA operation, Mockingbird, which by stealth eventually had control of much of the American MSM or the German journalist Dr Udo Ulfkotte who worked for them in Germany and explained in detail how the system works in detail, it is no surprise that the BBC employs similar strategies and tactics to skew the truth. In fact, both JP Priestly and George Orwell talked about the bias of the BBC to the government of the day.
Moreover, the security services had a vetting office for potential employees in the BBC during the height of the Cold War. You will notice that I said I use a variety of internet sites, specifically to ensure I have as much information as possible before reaching a conclusion about events. Nevertheless in comparison to the Guardian/ Observer , Offguardian have never been a stenographer as they have been for the official propagandistic line being pumped out by the government of the day.
It’s also interesting to note when the term “ conspiracy theory “ was first predominantly banded about in the MSM which was in the Sixties after JFKs murder, supposedly by a “ lone gunman” who had bullets which could do 180 degree turns. Whenever anyone tried to question this implausible narrative, the term “ conspiracy theory “ was wheeled out to try and shut down any discussion about it. The Unspeakable by James W Douglass who wrote a very detailed, well researched and highly recommended by many journalists, former diplomats, and former CIA personnel book revealing the events, prior, during and after the murder of JFK which, naturally, the term “ conspiracy theory” was applied, yet, to this day no one has successfully put counter arguments against it.
Furthermore , it’s interesting to note how often since that time this term has been wheeled out when any critical analysis of the government’s narrative doesn’t stack up.
The notion of reputable resources also needs to be on occasion critically analysed. For example, Peter Hitchens has wrote a very detailed, well researched article concerning the attempt by the OPCW to obfuscate the truth about the supposed nerve gas attack in Ghouta which Ian Henderson, former inspector for them at the scene plus others revealed the true order of events. Other examples are from Wikileaks which discredited many supposedly kosher sources via the publication of their E Mails and other data.
brianbotou – You’re telling granny about sucking eggs. I just subject all-embracing conspiracy explanations and the tidal wave of internet utterances to the same scrutiny that I use in relation to the MSM.
As I stated earlier, when the word “ conspiracy “ arises without facts to support these claims, my antenna is immediately raised, what ever the source. Hence, why I use multiple sources to cross reference and start asking why the term “ conspiracy “ is used. Moreover, as I stated earlier I always apply the same criteria when dealing with supposedly “ reputable sources “.
It’s the CLPD recommendations for me. Nice simple choice: Lauren Townsend and Cecile Wright.
It’s now over 24 hours since the above poll closed, when can we expect the results to be published.
It’s now over
2412 hours