Posts Tagged ‘PR’

Foul-Mouthed Tories Curse and Swear at the Public

May 16, 2017

In the last piece, I noted how Jeremy Hunt and Theresa May both tend to have little to say unless it’s been programmed into them by Linton Crosby and the other PR spin doctors at Tory central office. Having no answers to opposition questions themselves, they wisely decide to keep silent. Or else simply recite the soundbites they’ve memorised.

Unfortunately, not all Tory politicos have the sense to realise when saying nothing is better than saying what they’d like to say.

Mike on Sunday put up a piece about two such idiots. One was Tory councillor Nick Harrington of Warwick, and the other was James Heappey, the Tory MP for Wells in Somerset.

After Ireland gave Britain ‘nul points’ in the Eurovision on Saturday, Harrington felt moved to tweet that the Irish could keep their f’king gypsies, and they were going to have a hard border imposed.

Heappey was visiting Millfield school in Somerset, an independent school that charges parents £12,000 a year to educate their sons and daughters. He asked the young citizens of the future what they thought of Scots independence. When one girl, who was Scots, said she’d vote for it, he told her to ‘f*** off back to Scotland’.

Charming!

Mike commented

Will the people of Wells be keen for James Heappey to represent them, after his foul-mouthed outburst at a schoolgirl? Are the people of Warwick happy to have Nick Harrington as a councillor after his racist tweet about Ireland?

Perhaps this is why Theresa May keeps telling us the General Election is about voting for her, and not the Conservative Party – the Conservative Party is an absolute, contemptible scandal.

He also notes that these idiots think they can carry on like that without suffering the consequences. Unless we throw them out on their backsides and vote in people who do match up to the requirements of the job.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/05/14/tories-disgrace-politics-with-foul-mouthed-outbursts-both-online-and-in-real-life/

I’m shocked that the two behaved as they did. I’m particularly disgusted by Heappey. Swearing at a child, who gives a perfectly reasonable, polite response to a question as a visitor to her school is absolutely unacceptable.

But I’m not surprised by all this. The Tories have a lot of previous. Of course, there’s a hatred of Eire running through the Tory party. I can remember the comments of one Tory MP as reported in the Heil in the 1980s, when the Irish Republic were demanding a role in the government of Northern Ireland. Instead of issuing a polite but firm refusal, as he could, he told them they could ‘stick their noses in their own trough’.

And there have been endless scandals where one of the old guard, who clearly fancies himself as someone who talks straight in disregard of ‘political correctness’ shows himself to be another racist in comments about immigrants, Blacks, Asians or foreigners in general.

You can also read similar tales in the ‘Rotten Boroughs’ column in Private Eye, about local councillors making disparaging remarks about their constituents, along with reports on local corruption.

David Cameron tried to weed out the racists in order to market the party as entirely respectable and comfortable with multicultural Britain. But as these comments show, the embittered Little Englander section of the party is still going strong. And it’s ready against all opposition from the Celtic fringe, whether it be in petulant, racist sneers brought on by the Eurovision Song Contest, or insulting schoolchildren.

1990s Spiked Magazine on Paedophile Allegations against MPs at Dolphin Square

October 12, 2016

Spiked in the 1990s was a short-lived, satirical magazine somewhat like a dirtier, more sweary version of Private Eye, but with fewer jokes. I thought it was related to the online website of the same name, but with a very right-wing bias, but apparently this is not the case. Looking through some old magazines today, I found a copy of issue 6 six of the magazine. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a date, but from its content it was written during Major’s reign at 10 Downing Street when Tony Blair was in opposition.

Despite the magazine being at least 25 or so years old, one of the stories is still very relevant to today. This is about the allegations of sadistic paedophile orgies using boys trafficked from care homes by MPs at Dolphin Square. This seems to relate to the current inquiry concerning MPs’ abuse of children. These include allegations that at least one of the boys so maltreated may have been murdered, and that some of the abuse took place at MPs’ lodgings at that London address.

The piece is entitled ‘Golly, Gissing and Michael’. It runs:

In pervious issues of Spiked, we have told the story about a British Airways executive’s friendship with the Minister for Defence, Michael Portillo – a relationship which the executive, Carl Douglas Gissing, has habitually denied, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Now new evidence has come to light regarding another of Carl D Gissing’s close friends, this time, not from the front bench of the Conservative Government, but from the twilight world of parliamentary lobby groups.

Derek Laud is the director of Ludgate Communications, a high powered political public relations outfit. he is also black, nick-named ‘Golly’ by his Conservative friends, homosexual and the former boyfriend of Michael Brown MP. He is the nephew and former research assistant of Lord Pit, and moves with equanimity through parliament, and in some very high circles.

He has written speeches for Prince Charles, knows Princess Diana, Prince Andrew and Fergie’s ex-beau, John Bryan. He introduced gay footballer Justin Fashanu to Westminster life, who later claimed that he had slept with two Cabinet Ministers. And then, presumably under some pressure, retracted the story.

Lau leads a very fashionable life, dining out at the exclusive La Caprice Restaurant in London, W1. Where he has been seen with Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley. He has a flat in Winchester Street, Pimlico, just around the corner from Dolphin Square, a luxury apartment block populated by MPs, and with a somewhat colourful nocturnal reputation.

It is here that the story becomes more interesting. There has always been a strong connection between Parliamentary lobby groups and the seamier side of Westminster night life. Dolphin Square has long been the scene of often very debauched parties, where certain MPs indulge some rather peculiar sexual peccadilloes with rent boys, and, presumably, each other.

According to one former employee of a well known Parliamentary Public Relations company which provided rent boys for Westminster parties, the male prostitutes are often underage and sometimes suffer appalling abuse. The source claims that no only are some beaten up, but that there have been cases where the boys were slashed with razor blades.

These grotesque crimes are not the norm in Westminster, they are a sordid aberration. But gay parties involving senior Tory politicians are commonplace, and Derek Laud is often on the guest list.

He is also known by one former resident of Greystone Heath Children’s home in Merseyside, Stephen Hasshim. Although this home is technically outside the Clywd investigation into child abuse, it was nevertheless a nightmare for many children who were unfortunate enough to live there. Hasshim remembers meeting Laud when he was thirteen.

According to certain former inmates at homes in Clywd, who later became male prostitutes in Brighton and London, they frequently plied their trade among MPs in Westminster and Dolphin Square. Which brings us back to the extra curricular role of the political lobbyist, and Derek Laud. Not forgetting, of course, Carl D. Gissing.

For a man who claims to have no parliamentary connections, it is strange that Gissing has been seen with Laud, who has a great many parliamentary connections, and also knows Michael Portillo rather well, whom Gissing claims he has never met. Perhaps, his denials are just sour grapes at not being invited to one of those Dolphin Square parties.

Note that the article does not implicate Laud in the sadistic torture of the boys procured for the orgies. I’ve mentioned this story before, and if it’s true, then it shows that these orgies were known about – and covered up – for a very long time. And it also implicates not just MPs, but also the parliamentary lobbyists. And as David Cameron, the previous prime minister, worked in PR, perhaps he is someone else the inquiry should also speak to. If it ever gets off the ground, of course, and does anything more than provide the pretence that the government is taking this issue seriously, like actually trying to bring anyone to justice.

Vox Political: Owen Smith Wants Momentum Banned because Has Same Initial Letter as ‘Militant’

September 16, 2016

I really couldn’t let this latest example of sheer lunacy from Smudger go. It just provides so much light on how he and the Blairites think, or at least, believe they can maker the rest of us think. It also makes you wonder how someone, who is so stupid or misinformed to believe that, can ever hope to present himself as political dynamo. As Kryten from Red Dwarf said of Arnold J. Rimmer, ‘Oh for a world class psychiatrist!’

Mike put up this evening a little piece reporting that Owen Smith, the Blairite challenger for the Labour leadership, told the world on Twitter that he thinks Momentum are a rebranding of the Militant Tendency, the Trotskyite group that infiltrated the Labour party in the 1980s. Why? Because Militant wasn’t subtle, and both Militant and Momentum begin with the same letter: ‘M’.

Mike sent up this piece of false logic by stating that his name also begins with ‘M’. How long before he too was rumbled? So he’s joked about changing it to Pharquar, with a ‘P’. That should appeal to Smudger as a Blairite. It begins with the same letter as the Blairite party-within-a-party, Progress. Oh yes, and Smudger’s old employers, Pfizer.

Owen Smith wants Momentum banned from Labour because the name starts with ‘M’ – like Militant

I’m left wondering if Smudger really is that thick, or whether it’s a lie to smear Corbyn in the minds of ordinary people, who are less well-informed politically. Militant Tendency aren’t Momentum. They’ve formed their own, separate party, called the Socialist Party. As for the similarity between the two names, because the share the same first letter, well, there are very many things that begin with ‘M’, as Mike himself points out. Like ‘M’, James Bond’s boss in the movies. Or child-murderer in Fritz Lang’s silent classic, M, from 1920s Germany, who was chillingly played by Peter Lorre. Perhaps Smudger also believes that Momentum is entirely made up of bug-eyed German serial killers, when not at their desks in their day job of ordering suave super-spies to combat villainous multi-millionaires trying to take over the world. Is this how the Blairites think of the Old Labour left? Do they think Corbyn, in private, takes off a mask to reveal himself as looking like Donald Pleasance or Charles Grey, wearing a Nehru-collared suit and stroking a white cat, as he giggles at his plan to incinerate the Earth from space-based lasers? Strange. Every time I’ve seen Corbyn on TV, he hasn’t been surrounded by goons in orange jump suits, and I’m fairly certain his constituency office isn’t located in a secret base inside an extinct Japanese volcano, or in an orbiting space station. Or in a secret laboratory under the Caribbean.

I do think I know where he got this bizarre idea, however. Looking through the Cheltenham branch of Waterstone’s the other week, I found on the shelves a book about Militant Tendency. And on the back was a series of approving comments, including one which said it would help anyone now trying to understand Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour party. This is part of the general line being pushed by the Labour right and its cheerleaders in the media, that Corbyn is a Trot and an infiltrator. He’s no such thing, of course, but that isn’t stopping them from repeating this calumny.

It also shows how, despite any protests they might make to the contrary, they’re also following Hitler’s advice on propaganda. It’s ironic, considering the way John MacDonald has been suspended from the party, because he dared to repost a picture of Dave Cameron as Adolf Hitler, along with a quote from the Fuhrer about taking away people’s freedoms tiny piece by tiny piece, so that they don’t realise what’s going on and can’t protest. There’s another quote from Adolf, or Goebbels, I can’t remember which, about making people believe in the One Big Lie. This runs that it doesn’t matter how stupid or false the lie is, you stick to your guns and repeat it as loudly and often as possible, until the majority of people believe you.

And this is exactly what Smudger and the rest of the Blairites are doing, trying to link Momentum with Militant Tendency and Trotsky.

It’s disgraceful, but what can you expect from someone, who was a PR man working for one of the big drugs companies when they were very keen to have the NHS privatised.

Vox Political on Clem Atlee’s Great Nephew’s Suspension for Satirical Cameron Meme

September 15, 2016

Mike over at Vox Political has posted a piece commenting on the real reason behind the suspension of John MacDonald, Clement Atlee’s great-nephew, by the ‘Compliance Unit’. They told MacDonald that he’d been suspended because of a piece he put up on the 8th August. The trouble is, he hadn’t put up any post on social media on the 8th of August this year. He had, however, posted up a piece on the 9th, with Cath Atlee, urging everyone to vote for Corbyn as the only surviving relatives of Labour’s greatest prime minister, and one of the very greatest premiers this country has ever produced.

Now it appears that the real reason Mr MacDonald was purged was because of a meme he put up of Cameron as Adolf Hitler, along with a quote from the Fuhrer stating that the way you deprive a people of their freedoms is to take it away a little at a time, so that they don’t know you’re doing it. The New Labour apparatchiks in the Compliance Unit claimed that the meme was ‘abusive’. Mike puts them right by showing that it isn’t. It’s satire. It makes a very strong point, but in a humorous manner. He also points out that it doesn’t attack other members of the Labour party, and that the Tories are fair game for such comments, otherwise noted enemies of the Tories, like Dennis Skinner, would have been purged a long time ago. He also points out that rummaging around social media to support punishing someone for breaking a rule that is only a month old is insupportable. Mike concludes

The best outcome Labour’s NEC – in charge of the ‘compliance unit’ – can hope for is to restore Mr Macdonald’s vote to the count and issue an apology so grovelingly abject that we’ll all become so distracted by it that we won’t remember what it’s for. Good luck with that, folks!

Meanwhile, the rest of us can look forward to the day – not far away – when an inquiry is launched into the activities of this ‘compliance unit’, and action taken over the behaviour of its absurdly-overpaid members.

The article can be read at: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/09/14/suspension-of-attlees-nephew-proves-labours-compliance-team-does-not-understand-satire/

There’s a lot more that can be said about this. Firstly, the meme makes a fair point. It isn’t abusive. If you want a real example of abuse, one of the instances that comes to mind was way back when William Hague was leader of the Tory party, and one of the Labour MPs sneered at him and compared him to a fetus. This shocked many people, and the MP had to apology. That’s abuse.

But Cameron has taken away people’s freedoms, gradually, all the while claiming to be protecting democracy, in a manner very much like that recommended by Hitler. Cameron and Nick Clegg passed legislation providing for secret courts from which the press and public are excluded in cases involving national security. In these cases, the accused may not know who his accuser is, or the evidence on which he is being tried, nor even what his crime is. These are all breaches of the fundamental principles of justice laid down in Magna Carta. Even in the Middle Ages, a criminal could only be tried if someone actually stood up in open court to accuse them. There were known malefactors, who the sheriffs, as the crown’s administrator and agent in the shires, had to arrest. Once they had them under lock and key in their dungeons, they then frequently appealed to a member of the public to accuse them of a crime so that they could be properly tried. It’s a peculiar situation when the Middle Ages starts to appear far more just than a piece of modern legislation passed by a supposedly democratic regime.

On a related point, one of the fundament principles of justice is that legislation cannot act retrospectively. You cannot arrest someone for doing something before it was made a crime. But this is what the Compliance Unit have done in this case, as in so many others. As Mike has pointed out.

Cameron, as part of the Tories’ ongoing attempts to destroy the unions, also wanted to pass legislation compelling strikers on a picket line to give their names to the rozzers. This was condemned as ‘Francoist’ by David Davis, one of the most right-wing of the Tories. Not that it’s particularly different from legislation the Tories briefly passed to stop strike action in the 1970s. Ted Heath also passed a law that would have banned strikes and seen wage claims passed to an industrial court. This was similar to legislation proposed a few years earlier by Barbara Castle in her paper, In Place of Strife. Heath went further, however, and included a clause, that would have allowed the authorities to identify who was responsible for calling the strike. As for the system of labour courts, that was introduced by Mussolini as part of his ‘Charter of Labour’ in Fascist Italy. The revival of similar legislation in supposedly democratic Britain convinced many political theorists that we were seeing the appearance of ‘Fascism with a human face’. That meant, Fascism without the strutting militarism and brutality of the archetypal right-wing dictatorships.

And Cameron was also very keen on expanding state surveillance, to keep us all safe from Muslim terrorists, or whoever. Again, very similar to the massive secret police and surveillance in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Franco’s Spain. Nazi Germany justified itself constitutionally as a response to political crisis, such as the attack on Germany by leftists in acts like the Reichstag fire. Every four years or so, Adolf Hitler had to go back to the Reichstag and pass a law stating that the crisis was not over, thus allowing him the constitutional power to go on ruling without the Reichstag for another four years. Again, like Cameron, the Fascist leaders claimed they were doing so to protect the public.

So the meme, while undoubtedly emotive, was perfectly justified. Cameron was, and Theresa May is, extremely authoritarian, and determined to chip away hard-won British freedoms in the manner described by Adolf. He’s also like another Nazi in his former profession. Cameron worked in PR, a profession not known for objective truth. Goebbels, Hitler’s ‘Minister for Public Enlightenment’ was a former adman, if I recall correctly.

The meme’s fair comment. Also, it’s pretty much to be expected that a politician, who is perceived to be dictatorial will be compared to Adolf Hitler. Just like they were compared to Napoleon before he arose. Such comparisons are so common, that unless they’re very unfair and say something monstrously untrue, they’re hardly worth censure. Those who do tend to make themselves look ridiculous, and furthermore seem to bear out the comparison.

And Mike’s right about other members of the Labour party having made similar comparisons. The classic example of such invective was Nye Bevan’s comment that ‘Tories are vermin’. It’s been used against the Labour party from time to time ever since. But that didn’t mean that Bevan didn’t have a right to say it. Bevan was Welsh coalminer, when there was grinding poverty in the Welsh coalfields. The Conservative government under Baldwin called in the British army to shoot strikers during one of the disputes in the 1920s. It might even have been during the 1926 General Strike. Accounts of the strike say that many of the miners were dressed in rags. In a situation like that, when men, who are starving are being shot down for daring to demand a higher wage, Bevan had an absolute right to hate the party that impoverished and killed them with all the venom that he did. Especially as the Tories in the First World War had demanded legislation that, in the words of one right-wing, would allow them to beat the unions like jelly.

I also wonder why the Compliance Unit should be so upset about a meme attacking David Cameron. Surely any decent opposition party should be attacking Cameron’s government for its assault on precious British freedoms. But not so those Blairites in the Compliance Unit. Perhaps they’re afraid it’ll bring back memories of similar legislation, also providing for secret courts, introduced by Blair and Jack Straw. Or perhaps they’re afraid it’ll offend all the Tory voters, whose votes they hope to steal by copying everything the Tories do, but promising New Labour will do it all better.

Either way, Mike’s right. It’s time the Compliance Unit and its bloated apparatchiks were wound up and investigated for their role in disrupting Labour party democracy and bringing the party into disrepute.

BBC Reluctantly Admits Lying about Anti-War Protest

September 12, 2016

Mike also put up today a piece from EvolvePolitics, which reports that the BBC on its Feedback page on its website, has admitted misleading the public about the anti-war demonstration it claimed in December last year had been staged outside Labour MP Stella Creasy’s home. The protests were aimed against MPs supporting further airstrikes against Syria. The Beeb’s report claimed that the protesters were ‘far left’, and the demonstration was bullying and intimidatory. Neither of these details were true. The protest was a peaceful vigil. It was not held outside the Walthamstow MP’s home, but her constituency office at a time when no-one was there. The Beeb’s retraction of the distorted report states that it ultimately came from a single Facebook post, that was picked up by a number of other social media commenters and reputable news sources, including the Independent and the Guardian. A few days later, the Beeb issued a partial correction, which changed the location of the story, but still retained the falsehood about the mood of the protesters.

Mike states

So the BBC had decided to run with the inaccuracy because other “reputable” news outlets had done so – and even misled the shadow chancellor into believing the lie.

It had allowed listeners to go on believing the lie that the demonstration was violent and intimidating, even after broadcasting a correction that only revised the location of the event – and not the mood.

Most damning of all is the fact that the full correction appeared – on a little-visited feedback page – on July 8 this year, and has only just been picked up (by the EvolvePolitics site – I had no idea this BBC page even existed).

It seems clear the BBC is quite happy to mislead the public in order to help the Conservative Government. This is not the behaviour of a reputable news outlet.

My advice: Stick to social media sites like Vox Political. We may not always have the full facts but we don’t actively lie to you.

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/09/11/post-truth-bbc-quietly-admits-lying-about-anti-war-demonstration-over-syria/

Mike’s statement that the BBC is quite willing to mislead the public to support the Tory government should no longer be a surprise to anyone. A few years ago Mike’s blog, along with, I think, Johnny Void and the Angry Yorkshireman, reported that Scots academics at Glasgow and Edinburgh universities had found that there was a pronounced right-wing bias at the Beeb. They found that the Corporation was something like three times more likely to interview Conservative politicians and businessmen than Labour MPs and trade unionists. My feeling is that the Beeb sees itself as part of the establishment, and interprets its duty as the state broadcaster to produce programming, or at least news reporting, that broadly supports the status quo. Its managers and senior staff come from the same social class as those in industry and the civil service, and many of its journalists and programme makers are part of the same social circle as the Conservative leadership. At least they were during David Cameron’s tenure at No. 10 with the Chipping Norton set. I don’t believe things have changed since Theresa May took over.

I also found it interesting that the Beeb should partly try to excuse itself by stating that it came from other reputable news sources, explicitly naming the Independent and the Guardian. This looks like the Beeb is trying to head off any claims of Conservative bias by citing two supposedly liberal papers. Except when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn, they’re not. Both papers, like the rest of the press, are strongly biased against him. Moreover, there have been reviews of books in Lobster, which have shown that the so-called left-wing press in Britain actually isn’t terribly left-wing at all. In the 1990s, the Guardian regularly used to appear in Private Eye’s ‘Street of Shame’ column for the way it promoted various brutal dictatorships, from Nigeria to Indonesia, praising them as excellent places to do business while ignoring these nation’s appalling human rights records. Some of the articles written in praise of these countries were straightforward PR pieces written by companies specially set up to promote them abroad.

And the excuse that others were following the same line really doesn’t excuse the BBC. Newspapers and the news media are supposed to check their stories. There are even specialist media organisation in America which do so. The Beeb, as the state broadcaster, surely should have had the sense and the resources to check that story as well. But it didn’t. This shows that either the Beeb was simply being lazy, or that the repeated purges of its journalism and newsgathering staff in favour of cutting costs, and boosting the salaries and expanding the jobs available in senior management, has had a detrimental effect on the Corporation’s ability to provide reliable news. Which is exactly what Private Eye has been saying every time more redundancies have been announced at the Beeb of the people, who actually make programmes and produce the news.

The BBC isn’t the sole culprit in this regard. The newspapers have also been shedding large numbers of journalists in order to remain afloat, and give their senior executives, proprietors and shareholders the bloated salaries and dividends they’re accustomed to expect. And several times their journos have been similarly caught out using entirely spurious reports on Wikipedia, posted as pranks, as their sources. For example, when Ronnie Hazlehurst, the composer of a number of well-remembered signature tunes for the BBC, such as that for 80 comedy series To the Manor Born, passed away a few years ago, someone altered his Wikipedia page so that it read that he had composed one of the Spice Girls’ hits. He hadn’t, as presumably any one of the Girls’ fans could have told them. But that didn’t stop the journo, and others in the rest of the press, repeating the story. They were also caught out during the World Cup one year, when someone altered the entry for one of the football teams from the Greek islands. This claimed that its supporters had a special name for themselves, wore discarded shoes on their heads, and had a song about a potato. All rubbish, but the journos decided it had to be true, ’cause it was on Wikipedia. Now it seems that Facebook is being used in the same way for journalists too stressed or too lazy to check their facts.

Of course, the other possibility is that they didn’t bother checking the details, and dragged their heels about correcting the statement that the protesters were out to threaten and intimidate, because the Facebook story told them exactly what they wanted to hear. All the prejudice about peace protesters and ‘hard left’ trade unionists – like the miners at Orgreave colliery, presumably – being violent thugs came flooding back, just like they had from Fleet Street during the 1980s. One of the daftest stories to come out about the peace movement then was a report that the Greenham Common women had managed to knock ‘Tarzan’ Heseltine to the ground, when he visited the base. Heseltine’s a big fellow – 6’3″, and so not easy to deck. He did fall over, but even he admitted that it was an accident. I think he fell over a guy rope or something. But whatever was the cause, he wasn’t pushed, shoved, punched, knocked or anything else. But Fleet Street published the story, ’cause as radical protesters, clearly the Greenham women had to be pathologically violent. Even when they said they weren’t, and gave interviews saying that they didn’t want men at the camp because they were afraid that any men present would start a violent confrontation.

As for hiding the correction on an obscure webpage, this seems to be part of common journalistic practice. Whenever a newspaper or magazine is forced to make a correction, it’s always tucked away in an obscure corner of the publication. The Beeb in this instance is no different. But their does seem to be a change of policy involved. I recall several previous instances, where the regulatory authorities had ruled that one of the Beeb’s programmes had misled the public. The ruling was announced on television or the radio itself. I can remember hearing such rulings on the 7.15 pm slot, or thereabouts, just after The Archers on the radio. For television, they used to issue the notifications of such rulings on Sunday evening just after Points of View and before Songs of Praise. This is a time slot when there would be relatively few people watching, but it’s still not as obscure as a very obscure webpage. Perhaps this is the new way the Beeb hopes to bury the news when its caught bending the facts.

Vox Political: Corbyn Critic Has Panic Room Installed at her Office

August 17, 2016

Mike over at Vox Political has put up a piece from the Guardian, reporting that the Jess Philips, a Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, has had a panic room installed at her constituency office. She states that she does not feel welcome by large swathes of people in the Labour party, and stated that she would struggle to stay in the party if Corbyn won again, unless something changes in the way people were treated online, in the streets and our security. She later denied that she was planning to quit.

Mike in his comments to the piece wondered who’s paying. He made very clear that no one in a job that doesn’t involve risks to their life, like MPs, should have to fear for their lives. He also makes it clear that he wouldn’t threaten her, or would want to follow through on any threats she had received. But he makes it clear that she is a vocal critic of Corbyn, and a very abrasive character, as was evident from her Twitter feed. Which meant that he was also sick of her unparliamentary behaviour.

I started wondering how far the installation of the panic room represented genuine fears, and how much it was all part of the theatre of victimhood the Blairites have been acting out every since they rebelled. We’ve had Angela Eagle claim that a brick was thrown through her office window, when it wasn’t. A brick was thrown, but it went through the window of shared staircase. There’s nothing to connect it to any Corbyn supporters. We’ve seen people from the Portman PR heckle Corbyn at a gay rights demo, and then claim that this represents popular feeling against him. And then there were the inflated stories about Corbynites hold demonstrations outside other anti-Corbyn MPs offices, when they were simply marching past. And it just seems to carry on. And as Philips is an abrasive character, there is a part of me that thinks she’s brought it on herself. She’s shown a willingness to gratuitously insult and upset people – I assume. I’m not on Twitter. And if she does that, then perhaps she shouldn’t be too surprised at the consequences, particularly as she must be aware that there are some very dark parts of the internet. Again, this makes me wonder how genuine her supposed fear is. After all, if the abuse she’s receiving is bad, you wonder just how much worse the abuse far more famous trolls like Louise Mensch and Katie Hopkins are getting from the people, who loath and despite the rubbish they mouth. Hopkins herself goes out deliberately to upset and offend, and has caused numerous scandals and outrages. But I haven’t heard of her claiming that she fears for her safety. Quite the opposite. Hopkins seems to be one of those vile people, who thrive off any abuse they get, which is why I don’t want to give her any publicity. But at the same time, she’s a national figure while Philips, I suspect, is still quite obscure to most people.

So while part of me feels guilty about the blaming the victim, I do wonder how far she genuinely fears for her life, and whether this is just another stunt at fake victimhood to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.

Vox Political on the Skwawkbox Interview with the Man behind the anti-Blairite T-Shirt

July 28, 2016

The Skwawkbox blog, which was partly set up to campaign against the privatisation of the NHS, has managed to track down and interview ‘Ged’, the elderly gentleman wearing the notorious anti-Blairite T-shirt. Ged was photographed wearing the shirt, bearing the slogan ‘Eradicate Blairite Scum’, flanked by two of the very people the shirt condemns: Lewis Parker of Portland, and Anna Philips of Progress. In the past few weeks there have been numerous stories about that shirt. It was said that Ged was tricked into wearing it by the two jokers as part of a smear campaign against the Corbynites. I was taken in by this story, and repeated it on my blog. However, Ged states that the T-shirt is genuine. Ged states that he’s a genuine follower of Corbyn, and, like millions of others, was inspired by his opposition to Thatcherism. He said he had the shirt made after the May Day rally. He also states that most people realised that the shirt was talking about political eradication.

This has changed after he was photographed with Phillips and Parker. Neither of the two told him, who they were. And so the rumour has grown up that he was part of their campaign to smear the Corbynites. This has reached the extreme of a story that he is part of an underground group inspired by the murder of Jo Cox. Ged strenuously denies this, calling it ‘absolute filthy rubbish’. Ged states that he was not part of any such campaign to smear Corbyn, nor did he intend to incite anyone to violence, especially as he is a union health and safety officer.

Ged’s own health is not good. He has been treated for mouth cancer, this added additional worry about his physical safety. Nobody assaulted him, but he did become paranoid because people gave him a wide berth and stared at him.

Mike states that Ged has been so clearly misrepresented by the two Blairites, that he has an excellent case for bringing a libel action. He says

It seems ‘Ged’ may have a very secure case for libel against the other people in the photograph. Clearly it would not have been used in the way it has if they had not taken it, and then spread lies about it.

Would any lawyer care to take on the case? It seems easy money, to This Writer!

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/27/vermin-t-shirt-wearer-tracked-down-its-not-what-weve-been-told-the-skwawkbox-blog/

and following the links to the original interview.

I think losing a libel action brought on behalf of ‘Ged’, and the wider community supporting Jeremy Corbyn, would have a very salutary action on the Blairites. Their whole campaign has been one long stream of abuse and misrepresentation after another. Eagle claimed she was abused at a Labour party meeting because of her sexuality, when no such thing occurred. The mother of another woman, who had married her female partner, testified to that. Eagle also lied about a brick being thrown through her office window. That also never occurred. And then there were the accusations of anti-Semitism brought against Red Ken, Naz Shah, Jackie Walker and others. Leninspart is many things, but he is demonstrably not an anti-Semite. You only have to look at his speeches and writing condemning all forms of racism, including against the Irish and anti-Semitism. Indeed, he devotes pages in his book, Livingstone’s Labour, to attacking the Labour party because it gave sanctuary after the War to Nazis, convicted of the most horrendous crimes against humanity, including active participation in pogroms against the Jews and the Holocaust. These monsters were given safety in Britain, because it was believed they could assist British intelligence in the Cold War against Communism. Jackie Walker is of mixed Black and Jewish heritage. Her Black British mother was thrown out of America for participating in the Civil Rights agitation. Her father is a Russian Jew, and therefore probably knows more than most about anti-Semitism. Walker is also an ardent campaigner against racism and prejudice, including anti-Semitism, and her partner is also Jewish. As for Naz Shah, she was on good terms with her local synagogue. This should say for itself that she isn’t anti-Semitic.

I’d say that these people have an excellent case for libel against the Blairites accusing them of anti-Semitism, particularly Jackie Walker. She said in an interview that her partner’s family had broken off contact with her. Clearly, this should constitute proof that the accusation has cause demonstrable distress and harm to her interests.

I’m not sure whether such libel actions would succeed, however, as in Britain you’re guilty unless proven rich. And New Labour had some very rich donors. Nevertheless, in my eyes and opinion New Labour has committed libel, and any attempt to claim otherwise in a court of law is flagrant perjury.

Vox Political on More False Claims of Abuse and Intimidation against Corbyn

July 25, 2016

Mike on Saturday put up another piece on the antics of the Blairites trying to accuse Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters of harassing and intimidating them. On Friday, Paula Sheriff and 43 other female Labour MPs sent a letter to Corbyn demanding that he act against groups that they claimed were intimidating them in his name. They also criticised John McDonnell and other Shadow Ministers for attending rallies were bullying was rife or quietly condoned.

The women behind the letter gave no evidence that the people involved in such campaigns against them were supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, or even members of the Labour party. As for their claims of bullying and intimidation, Corbyn himself has been making appeals for reconciliation. The personal attacks and criticisms come from the Blairites – Owen Smith, Angela Eagle and the Blairistas. And their tactics of abuse and misrepresentation have become so bad, that the Corbyn camp has drawn guidelines urging their supporters to have nothing to do with the Blairites, because they will mock and attempt to twist their words so as to misrepresent them.

Mike states that he can confirm these tactics are being used, because people have tried it on him. As for their demands, Mike reports that Corbyn is quite happy to hold meetings with women in the Parliamentary Labour party. He has also already issued statements condemning threatening behaviour. As for bullying at rallies, Mike states very clearly that it is difficult for him to control some of it, when it does not come from his camp but the Blairites themselves. Such as that ‘Eradicate Blairite Scum’ T-shirt, produced by Anna Phillips, of the Blairite pressure group, Progress, and her pet PR stunt organiser, Lewis Parker. This was the occasion where a threatening slogan was used on a T-shirt, as Madam Sheriff claims. Mike asks rhetorically whether those responsible for the T-shirt have come forward. Obviously, they haven’t, nor are they likely to.

See Mike’s article at http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/23/is-there-any-evidence-at-all-to-connect-threats-of-abuse-to-labour-mps-with-jeremy-corbyn/

All this reminds me of the tactics Mussolini used to try and justify Italian imperialism on the international stage. The Fascists claimed that Italy was a ‘proletarian nation’ that was being discriminated against by the other European powers, who were preventing it from acquiring the empire it so richly deserved. Apart from Ethiopia, and North Africa, Musso also had his eye on Nice in France, Greece and Albania. Before he finally launched his invasion of the last two, the Duce made a number of inflammatory speeches claiming that Italy has a right to them. When the Great Powers, France and Britain, told him precisely where he could go, he then made a series of new speeches complaining about how poor Italy was being bullied by France and Britain. Even though the ranting and aggressive militarism was all coming from him.

So it is with the Blairites. In fact, there is something very childish about the way they behave. It all reminds me very strongly of school bullies. You know, the type that liked to punch people from behind, and then run away screaming for miss the moment they were accused. Or would issue a stream of insults, challenging you to a fight, but demand that you should hit them first, so they could say you started it. And if you weren’t drawn, they’d then start yelling that you were obviously a coward and afraid of them. It’s all at that level.

And several of their demands actually look to me like a way of trying to close down democratic debate through the back door. Let’s take their demand that people should stop demonstrating in front of constituency offices, because they and their staff feel threatened. The most logical place for a demonstration against an unsatisfactory politician is in front of their office. Now this should be done without personal threats or abuse. But it should be a perfectly legitimate form of the right to demonstrate. It only becomes harassment if threats and insults are made. I would argue that demonstrations, simply as demonstrations, only constitute harassment if they are made outside the person’s home, or that of other members of their family. The Blairite ladies are here using the precise logic that has seen Cameron’s government crack down on the right of the public to hold demonstrations. These can now be banned by the local authorities if they feel they constitute a ‘nuisance’. Not if they may lead to public order problems, like possible rioting or fighting, but simply ‘nuisance’. It’s part of the same desire to find ‘soft’ reasons for limiting public expressions of disapproval, and so maintain the image of overwhelming public support.

And I don’t take seriously the Blairite’s claims that there is somehow a culture of misogyny under Corbyn. A year or so ago he was being ridiculed for suggesting segregated, women-only railway carriages might be a solution to the problem of sexual assaults and rape against women on the trains. His opponents rightly pointed out that wasn’t the answer, and that women should be safe regardless of where they were. Absolutely. But Corbyn’s answer, although extreme, showed that he took the issue very seriously indeed. In many ways, it reminded me of the controversies over Ken Livingstone’s GLC over the way they funded radical feminist, gay and anti-racist groups.

This is yet another bullying attempt by the Blairites to play the victim and smear their opponents. All such antics are doing is revealing quite how childish and bullying Smiff, Sheriff and the Blairites are.

Seema Malhotra’s Claims of Bullying, While Squatting in Someone Else’s Office

July 25, 2016

Mike also posted another piece commenting on the false claims of harassment and intimidation by Seema Malhotra, the former Chief Shadow Secretary to the Treasury. Malhotra claimed that there had been a campaign of harassment against her, culminating in aides from Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell entering her office without her consent on the 13th and 15th of July.

She would indeed have a case against Corbyn and McDonnell, if the office was hers. But it wasn’t. She resigned on June 26th, and was expected to have left the premises. She hadn’t, and so, under the terms of the act, was squatting. She was occupying a space that she neither owned, rented, or had lawful reason to use. McDonnell explained that the offices had been entered, because they didn’t expect her to be there. Malhotra herself says that the aide, who entered the office was surprised to find a member of her staff there.

Mike suggests that the only reason Malhotra was still in the office, was so that she could contrive an incident, which she could then claim was an act of bullying by McDonnell and Corbyn.

See Mike’s article http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/23/did-nobody-tell-seema-malhotra-that-squatting-has-been-illegal-since-2012/.

This is very plausible. From the first, the Blairites have been inventing false allegations of bullying against Corbyn and his supporters. There were the accusations of anti-Semitism, which were factually wrong, and risibly directed against people, who were Jewish or Black and personally deeply involved in campaigning against anti-Semitism and racism. Then there was the T-shirt with the slogan ‘Eradicate Blairite Scum’, which was actually manufactured not by a Corbynite, but by a Blairite and her pet ‘PR and Media Guru’. And after that Angela Eagle falsely claimed that someone from the Corbyn camp had thrown a brick through her office window. Except that they hadn’t. It had been thrown through a different window in the same building, a building that she shared with a number of other organisations. It was also in an area which suffered frequent acts of vandalism. There was no evidence linking Corbyn or his supporters to the crime, except in the imagination and mendacious tongue of Eagle.

Owen Smith, Eagle and the other 172 Blairite MPs, including Malhotra, are starting to resemble the villain from the first Dirty Harry movie. This is a truly heinous individual, who tries to have Eastwood’s hard-bitten cop removed from the investigation, by deliberately staging an assault on himself, and then claiming that Harry did it. Of course, this all ends with Eastwood’s character uttering that speech about not knowing how many bullets he’s fired – five or six – and then saying, ‘Do you feel lucky, punk? Do ya?’

The Blairites are like the murderer in the movie, fabricating attacks on themselves in order to play the victim falsely. It’s time this charade stopped. Mike states that if Malhotra was still occupying her office in order to interfere with Labour party business, such as obstructing its use by Corbyn and his supporters, then she should face an inquiry and possible disciplinary action. He’s right. These antics have gone on long enough. They’re not impressing anyone, and the more they go on, the less credible they seem. Except to the Tory press and media, with whom the Blairites evidently want to ingratiate themselves.

Chunky Mark on Owen Smith as the Official Labour Challenger to Corbyn

July 20, 2016

More Chunky Mark, the Artist Taxi Driver, I’m afraid. I’m reblogging him because he does have genuinely pertinent and incisive observations about the current leadership challenge against Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour party.

He begins this rant by talking about how the media just repeats its lies and smears against Corbyn, until people automatically believe they’re the truth. He doesn’t mention it, but this is exactly the tactic advocated by Goebbels and Hitler for spreading Nazi propaganda. You start with a big lie, keep the message simple, and carry on banging away at it until enough people believe it. And they will.

He then moves on to discussing how Angela Eagle has lost her bid for leadership to Clive Owen, who boasted that he was normal man, married, with three kids. Chunky Mark sees this as a further rejection of socialist values in the Labour party, in that a female candidate once again lost to a man. He notes that Condoleeza Rice, the woman of colour in George Dubya’s cabinet of neocon monstrosities, observed that Corbyn’s opponents are all men, but they use the testimony of women as their weapons against Corbyn. ‘So this is it,’ asks the Chunky One rhetorically, ‘women are just cannon fodder for the men in this contest?’ At the heart of his outrage here appears to be the allegation that Smith was deliberately playing on anti-gay prejudice when he stressed his family background, as Eagle has said she’s a lesbian. I don’t know how far that was the case. Eagle had on 6 per cent of the vote before she started out, so I think it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that she’d lose. But this doesn’t mean she wasn’t used along the way.

As for Owen Smith himself, he’s another shabby PR spin doctor, like David Cameron. And he’s not untouched by scandals. Among the firms he worked for was a big pharmaceutical company that was fined $762 million for promoting their anti-cancer drug in such a way that it would cause people to die. And before then, Smith worked for Pfizer, another profiteering big pharma company. Smith quotes Stephen Kinnock, the son of Neil Kinnock, himself now an MP, who has said that if Corbyn wins, it’s all over for Labour. Chunky Mark observers caustically that this is what the Labour values now come down to, being a PR merchant for a corrupt pharma company that miss-sells drugs and kills people.

Chunky Mark notes that the real plotters are the 172 Labour MPs. The Labour party, thanks to Corbyn, is the biggest political movement in Europe, but the Labour MPs can’t stand it because it doesn’t represent their ideas for the world. He states that he was there at the election with John Snow, when one after another the Labour MPs walked out in a huff after he won. Corbyn represents the dreams of people, who believe another world of possible. And the Chunky One goes on to state that this is all about your dreams, who represents you in parliament, not big business.