Tag Archives: Daily Mail

Daily Heil’s teacher-shaming propaganda campaign is potentially deadly – and racist, too

‘Let our teachers be heroes’: is that because DEAD heroes don’t cause trouble for Tories?

The Daily Mail has scored a spectacular own-goal by not only attacking teachers who are fighting to keep our children safe from the coronavirus, but by doing it in a racist way.

The right-wing rag is supporting Education Secretary Gavin Williamson in his claim that teachers should “do their duty” and get children back into school at the beginning of June – despite the fact that Williamson has offered no evidence to reassure either teachers, parents or pupils that measures will be imposed to make them all safe from infection with the coronavirus.

This Site published information earlier, in which the Department for Education’s own scientific advisor admitted that reopening schools could potentially create hundreds of potential “vectors” – per school – that could then transmit Covid-19 into society at large. He offered no proof that scientific evidence had played any part in the decision to demand that schools reopen. And he admitted that he had not assessed whether the government’s proposals for opening schools safely could be implemented in an effective way.

In short, the plan to reopen schools is a deathtrap. And the Daily Mail supports it.

Not only that, but the paper that supported Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War Two (he was also a racist) has managed to demonstrate its own racism with the stock picture it used to illustrate its Tory government propaganda piece – by cutting out the children of minority ethnic parentage from the image:

Sickening.

Fortunately, right-thinking people across the UK have been standing up to humiliate the Mail. Here’s just a sample of their comments:

https://twitter.com/Tobysdad41/status/1261247011149529088

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Don’t expect the papers to report Riley libel trial straight


I finally got round to reading the Daily Mail‘s report of the court hearing in the Rachel Riley libel case on December 11 – and all I can say is: how disappointing!

The result of the hearing was that the judge rejected most of Ms Riley’s claims about the meaning of my article, and the members of her legal team were told to go away and rethink their charges against me.

So why did the author of the Mail report lead on a claim that Ms Riley had been wrongly accused of being responsible for death threats against a teenage girl?

I don’t think I even heard that claim being made in court; it is possible that it was implied – I put the likelihood no higher than that.

In fact, my article stated that I did not believe she had intentionally tried to get her followers to threaten the girl with death. I argued that she had been irresponsible and reckless, in that others seemed to have been encouraged to do so after reading her comments.

The Mail accurately reported that Ms Riley’s lawyers argued that my article portrayed her as a hypocrite – but then, so did my own. That was the opinion my article was presenting.

And the judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, ruled that the article was a classic expression of opinion in that respect.

If this is the standard of journalism I can expect in reports of the case, then I can expect no justice from the mass media.

But then, we won’t need to worry about what they say if I win the case; they will make themselves look foolish.

If you would like to see that happen, then please help my CrowdJustice campaign (or carry on helping, if you have done so already):

Please consider making a donation yourself via my CrowdJustice page – I know the Festive Season is upon us and cashflow can be difficult at this time, but when you are able, all contributions will be appreciated.

Email five of your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.

Post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.

On Twitter, you could tweet in support, quoting the address of the appeal.

On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.

I’ve got the evidence I need but now I need to be able to afford the cost of getting it heard in court.

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Survey shows Britain wants to remain in EU – so the Mail concocts a blatant May-supporting LIE

Propaganda: The Daily Mail’s ‘fake news’ front page.

How many people will be fooled by this fake news – and this fake newspaper?

The Daily Mail‘s front page yesterday (November 28) stated that a Survation poll showed the British people believe Theresa May’s comprehensively-rubbished Brexit deal is “the best on offer” – a meaningless claim as it is the only deal on offer, but how many Heil readers are going to recognise that?

The article stated: “Voters want Tory MPs to rally behind Theresa May’s Brexit deal, a poll shows today.

“According to the Survation survey for the Daily Mail, 52 per cent say her plan is the best on the table. Only 19 per cent disagreed.

“And 41 per cent said the Commons should back the withdrawal agreement – compared with 38 per cent who want it voted down.

“Asked to choose between Mrs May’s plan and the prospect of a Labour government, voters favoured the Prime Minister by 46 per cent to 31 per cent. Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.”

But the poll actually shows that Britons would rather remain in the European Union than put up with Mrs May’s pathetic plan.

Here’s journalist J.N. Paquet on Twitter to explain:

So only 37 per cent of those who answered the poll support Mrs May’s deal. Nearly two-thirds did not.

And 59 per cent did not want MPs to vote for it on December 11 (or whenever the ‘meaningful’ vote takes place).

So nearly half those polled thought Mrs May should resign if she loses the vote.

Oh – and look! “EU said Brexit agreement is the only one on table.” But the Mail stated “52 per cent say her plan is the best on the table”. What do the other 48 per cent support, then?

So it doesn’t matter what the options are – only 35-37 per cent of those polled support Mrs May’s deal. Other options always poll higher, no matter whether the choice is remaining in the EU or leaving without a deal.

Now we see that remaining in the EU earns between 44-50 per cent of the vote, no matter what the other options might be.

This is the only negative aspect of the poll: Mrs May’s Brexit beats the possibility of a Labour government – perhaps because Labour has never made clear exactly what its version of Brexit would be?

Again, Labour loses out – again, most likely, because we don’t know the shape of a Labour Brexit.

Perhaps the TV debate will change this, if Jeremy Corbyn opens up and explains a little of Labour’s alternative plan.

So we see that the Mail‘s report is – deliberately? – misleading.

The majority of those surveyed do not support Theresa May’s Brexit agreement.

More of those who took part supported remaining in the European Union.

There will be a lot more of this nonsense over the next two weeks.

Propaganda sheets like the Daily Mail cannot be trusted to provide accurate information. People should go to original sources where possible.

Spread the word.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Let’s name and shame some anti-Corbyn liars

The faked-up controversy about Jeremy Corbyn’s criticism of Zionists who “deliberately misinterpreted” (read: perverted) a Palestinian representatives words in order to distort their meaning has really brought the nasties out from under their respective rocks.

It seems the malicious and misanthropic are queuing up to malign Mr Corbyn, who was perfectly correct to criticise Zionists for their apparent failure to “understand English irony”.

Some of his critics, it seems, also need to try to grasp this point – as they have distorted his words for their own purpose. This is exactly the same misdemeanour that Mr Corbyn pointed out in the 2013 clip that has sparked the current wave of pointless outrage.

It’s a common tactic – many of us have fallen foul of it.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court

Here’s an example – coupled with the put-down it deserves:

Gregg Carlstrom is the Middle East editor of The Economist. If that is an example of his journalistic accuracy, he should be facing the sack (or at least receive a verbal warning).

According to the Daily MailStephen Pollard, Gentile editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said: ‘This shows the reality of what Jeremy Corbyn thinks of Jews, somehow a breed apart from “normal” English people.’

Pollard added that he believed the Labour leader ‘used the word “Zionist” obviously to mean “Jews”.’

Neither the Mail nor Mr Pollard provided any evidence to support this claim. Mr Corbyn is on record as saying he used the term Zionist in an “accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people”.

It is well worth noting that the complaint by these alleged Zionists has not been published by the Mail, lending credibility to Mr Corbyn’s statement. What has the newspaper got to hide?

Also quoted in the Mail was Jonathan Sacerdoti, a founder of the pro-Israeli-government pressure group that masquerades as a charity, the Campaign Against Antisemitism. He said: “The idea that British Jews somehow haven’t absorbed British values is outrageous.” It is indeed. And he really should not be putting it about and claiming Jeremy Corbyn suggested it.

Gideon Falter, current chair of the vile CAA, stated: “It is precisely this euphemistic use of the word ‘Zionist’ to refer to Jews and direct smears at us which used to be the preserve of anti-Semites amongst the aristocracy.” “This” being the use of the word “Zionist” by Jeremy Corbyn? Where’s this liar’s proof that he did so?

Here’s Joan Ryan of Labour Friends of Israel, determinedly mixing “Zionist” with “Jew” to present a false impression – and a takedown from John Clarke:

How about Emily BennTony Benn is probably spinning in his grave at this disgrace:

Eddie Marsan – an actor:

Now, how about some voices of reason?

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Mail’s ‘Corbyn wreath’ front page is a desperate lie

This image is from the Skwawkbox article about the Mail‘s fairy story – and is absolutely right: This is fake news.

How desperate are the writers, editors and publisher of the Daily Mail to discredit Jeremy Corbyn?

Desperate enough to fabricate a story about him laying a wreath at the graves of terrorists, it seems.

The paper has resurrected a smear story from last year with new photos of the location, and is trying to say that the official version of events is a lie – and that Mr Corbyn was commemorating terrorists.

The fairy story runs as follows: “A memorial wreath in his hand, Jeremy Corbyn stands feet from the graves of terror leaders linked to the Munich Massacre.

“The picture was among a number taken during a service to honour Palestinian ‘martyrs’.

“Buried in the cemetery in Tunisa are members of Black September, the terror group which massacred 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.

“One picture places Mr Corbyn close to the grave of another terrorist, Atef Bseiso, intelligence chief of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

“Bseiso has also been linked to the Munich atrocity. Another image shows the Labour leader apparently joining in an Islamic prayer while by the graves.

“Last night sources close to Mr Corbyn insisted he was at the service in 2014 to commemorate 47 Palestinians killed in an Israeli air strike on a Tunisian PLO base in 1985.

“But on a visit to the cemetery this week, the Daily Mail discovered that the monument to the air strike victims is 15 yards from where Mr Corbyn is pictured – and in a different part of the complex.

“Instead he was in front of a plaque that lies beside the graves of Black September members.”

This means nothing.

Mr Corbyn was in a cemetery. Lots of people are buried in cemeteries. Not all of them are likely to have led wonderful lives.

Being a member of the press, This Writer has attended many photocalls, and you know what?

Not all of them happened exactly on the spot of the events they were intended to depict.

There are all sorts of reasons for it. There might be more people than would fit in the space where the picture should be taken, so they move a little way along. Perhaps some people aren’t allowed in that space, for reasons particular to the place and culture. I’m sure you can think of a few possible reasons yourself.

So the Mail‘s circumstantial suggestions prove nothing.

Alternatively, we may consider the Labour leader’s own version of events – that he was laying a wreath to commemorate 47 Tunisians and Palestinians killed by Israel in an air attack on Tunisia in 1985,and that this was nothing whatsoever to do with Munich Olympics.

As this is a story from last year, we have Mr Corbyn’s own words on the subject: “I was in Tunisia at a Palestinian conference and I spoke at that Palestinian conference and I laid a wreath to all those that had died in the air attack that took place on Tunis, on the headquarters of the Palestinian organisations there.

“And I was accompanied by very many other people who were at a conference searching for peace.”

This should be easy to corroborate. I wonder why the Mail does not appear to have bothered. Is it perhaps because a desperate lie is more acceptable to that rag’s staff than an uncomfortable truth?

Did strapped-for-a-story Sunday Times resurrect six-month-old Labour deselection twaddle?

The good fellows at Momentum were up in arms earlier, because of this:

Sunday Times front January 21.

The Momentum Twitter account had this to say:

“The Sunday Times contacted us at 9pm, half an hour before print. The story is based on one unnamed source. Others on twitter say they rewrote half the paper at the last minute as their big story was pulled.

“Desperate for a new front page, have @thesundaytimes just made this up?”

Well, the Sunday Times is behind a paywall that This Writer won’t cough up to get past, so I looked up the story in downmarket sister rag The Sun instead (don’t judge me – it’s all in the name of research). Apparently, it goes like this:

“As many as 50 Labour MPs are on a de-selection hit-list drawn up by leftist supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, it has been claimed.

“Moderate Labour MPs have been warned that Corbyn’s allies want centrist candidates ousted toe e replaced by hard line lefties.

“A Labour Party whip has been privately telling moderates not to rock the boat or they could face the chop.

“The news comes amid fears many will be targeted if rule changes are pushed through this autumn, The Times reports.

“Chris Leslie, former shadow chancellor, and Hilary Benn, son of Left wing icon Tony Benn, are believed to top the list.

“Angela Eagle, who challenged Corbyn for the leadership in 2016, and her sister Maria, are also thought to be in the activists’ sights.

“A source told The Times: “Allies of Corbyn have admitted they have a list of MPs they want to get rid of.”

“The disclosure came as three Momentum-backed candidates, including founder Jon Lansman, were elected to Labour’s national executive committee last week.”

It all seemed a bit familiar, so I got on a search engine and found this, from the Daily Mail website, dated July 7 last year – six months ago:

Hard left activists have drawn up a deselection ‘hit list’ of nearly 50 Labour MPs who have criticised Jeremy Corbyn.

A Momentum group in South Tyneside has published a list of politicians who they say should ‘join the Liberals’.

They include Chuka Umunna – who led a revolt against Mr Corbyn over leaving the EU single market – Chris Leslie and Jess Philips.

The list emerged as it emerged that another moderate MP had been ordered to apologise to Mr Corbyn after a hard-left clique took over her local party.

Luciana Berger, who is currently on maternity leave, was told by one newly-elected member of the executive in Liverpool Wavertree that she should ‘get on board quickly’ or face being axed.

The similarities are obvious – not just the names of those involved, like Chris Leslie and Maria Eagle (whose name is on the list published in the Mail‘s story, but also the language: In the Times story, moderate MPs are being told not to “rock the boat”, while in the Mail, Luciana Berger was allegedly told to “get on board quickly”.

Snap reaction: This is fake news. The Sunday Times has resurrected an old allegation about Momentum – most probably in response to the victory of Momentum-backed candidates including the organisation’s founder, Jon Lansman, in elections to the party’s ruling National Executive Committee last week.

Is there anything to it? Doubtful.

I’m sure a leading Labour figure ruled out mandatory reselection of MPs in an interview last week (although I admit I can’t find it at the time of writing), and the commentariat seemed to be taking that person at their word.

In the Labour Party, it seems, the ceasefire has been holding.

But that could change if these Murdoch rags stir up submerged animosities. Let’s hope nobody lets that happen.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Right-wing press stories have backfired so often, people are creating their own spoofs

Lola Olufemi: When the Daily Telegraph published its retraction, she tweeted: “Small victories, hopefully I can get on with my job now.”

You couldn’t make it up – unless you worked for a right-wing rag like the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. And from now on, even if reporters at those organs try, they won’t be believed.

The Daily Mail blotted its own copy(book) with an article on “Our Remainer Universities”. Building on the revelation that Tory whip Chris Heaton-Harris had written to universities, requesting details of courses and lecturers dealing with the European Union and Brexit, the <ahem> paper asked readers to send in their own stories.

Apparently nobody in the editorial team stopped to consider the kind of responses they would get from respondents who are – not to put too fine a point on it – educated.

Nor did they expect the floodgates to open in quite the way they did. This Site has already published one professor’s response. Here are a few more, from a range of sources:

For those who cannot read images, Steve Peers wrote: “Dear Witchfinder General,

“I am writing to turn myself in as what your paper would consider a biased professor.

“I discuss the details of refugee law with my students, whereas your paper referred to the ‘problem’ of Jewish refugees ‘pouring into the country’ and depicted recent asylum seekers as rats.

“I ask students to look at EU and human rights laws on LGBT equality, whereas your paper referred to ‘abortion hope’ after a ‘gay gene’ was found.

“I discuss the risk that far right extremism poses to human rights, whereas your paper cheered ‘hurrah to the blackshirts’; and I outline the importance of the rule of law, whereas your paper shrieks that judges it disagrees with are ‘enemies of the people’.

“Despite all this, I can only dream of receiving the huge sums from the EU that your editor Paul Dacre has obtained.

“I can only salute your paper’s commitment to the truth, in spite of its many losses and settlements in libel cases and the frequent readers’ complaints it provokes.

“Yours sincerely,

“Steve Peers
“Professor of Law, University of Essex.”

“Aaron” wrote: “Good morning.

“I attend updog university, and we are being taught anti Brexit propaganda by our left wing professors. We are now made to gather in the study hall once a week and salute an EU flag whilst the professor slowly eats a croissant.

“Another lesson that is now mandatory is ‘brexit may not have been a good idea and blind patriotism is a foolish and extremely dangerous answer’. I think this is disgusting. If you keep saying it will be ok, it will be ok. We all know this. I once had a rabbit that got smashed to bits by a tractor and I said it would be ok and a few days later my dad got me a new rabbit.

“Please help me, there is no longer any room for bigots like myself at places of education and thought.

“Yours sincerely
“Aaron.”

https://twitter.com/davies_will/status/923483195361976320

From Will Davies: “Hi.

“I thought you might be interested in the behaviour of one of our lecturers. In a 2nd year module I take (‘Cultural Maxism and Masculinities’ – 15 credits) our lecturer declared that they were committed to ‘free speech’, but on condition that the speech was in a language other than English. My mate was determined to give an opinion on why Brexit was good, but was forced to stand at the front of the class explaining it in French, a language he doesn’t really speak.

“Happy to talk more.
“Will.”

From Tom Goodwin: “Hello,

“I wish to inform you that I have indeed experienced bias around Brexit at the University of Leeds.

“Only yesterday, I had a lecturer of International Communication show us a study which supposedly demonstrated that the wider international community believe that Brexit is a bad idea. I soon put him straight by showing him my curved banana and asking him whether or not this was the kind of thing that should be influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels.

“Needless to say, the spineless lefty had no response to my compelling argument.

“It is totally scandalous that the lecturers there have based their opinions about Brexit on both fact and quantifiable research that has been critically assessed and approved of by other members of the academic community.

“I can only pray that my lecturers stop using verifiably true information to influence the young minds that they are placed in charge of, and instead use publications such as yours to show students that Brexit will not only bring prosperity to our nation, but will also rid our proud island of the scourge of immigrants, with their unpronounceable names and funny accents.

“I hope this anecdote will be useful to you and your fine fact reporting establishment.

“Yours,
“Thomas Goodwin.”

https://twitter.com/TimBrudenell/status/923514342733221888

And from Tim Brudenell: “Dear Sir/Madam, but hopefully Sir

“There I was performing my morning salute to the national anthem in my commemorative Princess Diana knitwear when my History lecturer kegged me and forced me to eat a copy of Das Capital.

“I was so distressed by this event I had to cancel my erotic pottery class.

“Yours wistfully,
“Crampton Breadworth.”

Not to be outdone, the Daily Telegraph ran a story claiming that Cambridge University Student Union women’s officer Lola Olufemi had forced the university to stop discussing white authors in order to “decolonise” its curriculum.

Of course the letter signed by Ms Olufemi and more than 100 students, on which the article was based, did not call for the exclusion of white men from reading lists and Cambridge University has not dropped any authors from its courses.

Nevertheless, the Mail (again) followed up the story with a a profile of Ms Olufemi headlined ‘Feminist killjoy* behind the campaign (*It’s what she calls herself)’.

The apology that appeared in the Torygraph‘s ‘Corrections and clarifications’ the following day stated: “An Oct 25 article incorrectly stated that under proposals by academic staff in response to an open letter from students on “decolonising” its English Faculty, Cambridge University will be forced to replace white authors with black writers. The proposals were in ract recommendations. Neither they nor the open letter called for the University to replace white authors with black ones and there are no plans to do so.”

These are just the latest blunders by our supposedly impartial mainstream media – which still, improbably, expect us to believe they are more reliable than online news sites.

Now, it seems people have decided enough is enough – and have started lampooning mainstream news stories as they come out.

For example, try this retooling of the story that the man who (allegedly) shot John F Kennedy – Lee Harvey Oswald – met representatives of the KGB before setting out to kill the then-president. It has been re-written to present a story that might be considered more in line with Heil readers’ leanings (and the version I’m using has been edited by an acquaintance to add some salient facts):

What next?


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Tory MP’s letter revives old lie that educators indoctrinated students against Brexit

In an open tweet to Chris Heaton-Harris, fellow Tory MP Paul Scully claimed: “This is what a lecturer was handing out to my daughter who spends £9k pa for him to be teaching engineering, not politics.” Believable? Or a set-up?

Does anybody remember a story in July this year, claiming that teachers were indoctrinating students to support ‘Remain’ in the EU referendum?

That story has been revived by the Daily Heil, after Tory whip Chris Heaton-Harris wrote to universities, demanding details of their courses on the EU, with particular reference to Brexit.

This Writer understands that Mr Heaton-Harris might be in some difficulty after Jo Johnson suggested he wanted the information for a book he was writing. There was no mention of this in the letter, which was written on House of Commons paper. The suggestion is that, by pretending to be writing in his capacity as an MP, rather than as a private citizen researching a book, Mr Heaton-Harris was trying to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception (his book would earn money for him personally, you see. Writing in his capacity as an MP means the information would be used, at least nominally, in the interests of the national political debate). In layperson’s terms, that’s fraud.

But the Daily Mail has seized on the letter – and the reaction against it (one university lecturer told Mr Heaton-Harris that he can have access to the materials he requested by joining the course and paying £9,000, just like everybody else) – to claim that universities are a hotbed of Leftie ‘Remain’ support.

The Mail article stated:

The extent of anti-Brexit bias at some of Britain’s best known universities was laid bare last night amid a furious row.
A Tory MP was castigated this week and accused of ‘McCarthyism’ for asking universities what they are teaching about the UK’s departure from the EU.
But yesterday the Daily Mail uncovered a string of examples of senior figures at universities explicitly speaking out in favour of Remain.
Before the vote, a raft of senior academics spoke publicly to urge their students to back staying in the EU.

Source: How open-minded are our universities? As an MP provokes a storm just for ASKING what students are being taught about Brexit, disturbing questions about propaganda in the lecture halls emerge

Of course, it’s nonsense. As the Tory-run DWP would say, it is anecdotal evidence. If considered as a survey, there is no balance in the respondents. It is simply the opinions of Daily Mail readers – and of the right-wing rag’s reporters and editors.

And already a backlash is taking place:

https://twitter.com/MattTurner4L/status/923478029967548418

And what is Mr Heaton-Harris doing?

Not a lot, it seems, as this tweet from Channel 4 News reporter Michael Crick suggests:


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Right-wing press must shape up or shut up after Abbott targeted for abuse AGAIN

Diane Abbott pleaded for peaceful protests after the death of Rashan Charles – she certainly did NOT defend rioting.

When right-wingers- especially right-wingers running newspapers – find a metaphorical dead horse to flog, they really put their back into it, don’t they?

Editors of the Daily MailThe Sun and the Daily Express took it upon themselves to misrepresent Diane Abbott after she spoke up about rioting that has taken place in London after the death of Rashan Charles, a 20-year-old man who died after being “restrained” by police.

The trouble started shortly after around 150 people gathered in Dalston, near where Mr Charles was tackled by officers on July 22.

Protesters threw bottles at police and barricaded Kingsland Road, a long main road which runs past the police station where the protest started peacefully and also through the area where Mr Charles died. The disorder is said to have lasted around an hour, between 10pm and 11pm on Friday (July 28).

The Metropolitan Police said a 17-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm, while a police officer suffered an eye injury but remained fit for duty.

Ms Abbott, in whose Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency the rioting took place, put out a press release saying: “The anger and upset at the death of Rashan Charles is understandable. But Rashan’s family have explicitly spoken out against hostile actions. We must respect their wishes and any protests must be peaceful.”

The Express misrepresented her with this headline: “‘It’s understandable!’ Diane Abbott defends anger as violent rioters HIJACK protest“.

Of course, Ms Abbott wasn’t saying that rioting was “understandable”. She said “anger and upset” was. She was asking for protesters to respect the wishes of Mr Charles’s family – in fact advocating peaceful protest, not “hostile actions”.

Ms Abbott herself responded to similar lies in the Mail

– and also in The Sun:

Perhaps these right-wing propagandists have been emboldened by the apparent success of the Tory Party lie that Jeremy Corbyn promised to write off student debts if elected into office in June. In fact, he said no such thing and there was no such promise in the Labour Party manifesto.

Another recent right-wing lie is the Tory claim that parents having a job lifts children out of poverty, when in fact the rise in the number of working families simply means there has been an increase in working-household poverty.

They try to pretend that valid arguments – like those presented in a recent Momentum video about the selective amnesia suffered by certain middle-class Tory voters about the help they had to become comfortably wealthy – are “hateful” attacks on bourgeois “caricatures”, but are able to mount no coherent argument against its claims.

And does anybody remember the squawks of upset after This Site pointed out the political aspects of the disastrous fire that engulfed Grenfell Tower last month? Again, this had no basis in fact – the fire happened because safety regulations had been relaxed to the point where landlords could put flammable cladding on the building without being questioned over it, while neither council chiefs nor MPs reviewed safety rules.

Yes, it seems I was the first to point out specifically that there was a political angle to the disaster, on the morning after it happened. The Tories and their lapdogs in the press only picked up on articles that followed in other sites, again claiming that these criticisms were inappropriate.

And yet now – because of pressure from myself and the others – it’s the only story to be told about Grenfell.

Perhaps the uptight right believes Ms Abbott is fair game because she has carried out a few poor performances, notably in a radio interview about police funding and personnel. It was what’s known as a “gotcha” interview – one in which politicians are criticised for failing to memorise relevant information about a policy, rather than for the policy itself. Many Conservative politicians suffered the same fate in the run-up to the general election, but did not receive nearly as much negative attention.

It was later revealed that the MP has been suffering from a long-term illness – but This Writer does not recall seeing any apologies from the gutter newsrags.

Really, the tone of political debate needs to be improved, and massively.

Emotion-based, evidenceless claims from the right are pointless; we can all look up the facts.

And personal attacks that deliberately misrepresent comments by any politician are also ridiculous, because they can use the social media  – as Ms Abbott has – to dismiss these claims, almost before the printing presses have finished churning out hard copies of the lies.

The choice facing the right-wing media is very simple, then:

Shape up – or shut up.


Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Sad postscript to Jo Cox murder trial as ‘newspapers’ turn to racism to justify her murderer

[Image: Political Scrapbook.]

[Image: Political Scrapbook.]

Pathetic, isn’t it?

Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox in what her husband Brendan described as “an incompetent and self-defeating act of terrorism” and the Judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, said was “carried out to advance a political cause of violent white supremacism, associated with Nazism”.

But The Sun and The Mirror want you to believe it was because his mother married a black man, and the Daily Mail would rather blame the phantom threat of immigrants taking his home.

What utter drivel.

There is no evidence that Mair’s family history contributed to his crime.

There is no evidence that his landlord – the local council – wanted to evict him. In fact, under the terms of his tenancy, it seems this was impossible.

It seems all three periodicals have become apologists for terrorism.

The Mail‘s dubious stance was compounded by the fact that it buried its report of the court’s verdict on page 30 of that day’s edition of the paper – an act that drew justified attention from LBC radio’s James O’Brien.

Speaking on his show, he said: “The Daily Mail has chosen to put the murder by a neo-Nazi of a serving British MP – and by her own husband’s account, a mother who put her children ahead of anything career-wise – on page 30.

“I don’t really understand why. Unless a murder by a neo-Nazi is less offensive to the sensibilities of the editor of this newspaper than a murder by a radical Islamist.

“Surely any fully-functioning moral compass would be equally disgusted by both.

“For people to use terror and death to pursue a political or an ideological goal in a civilised, peaceful society, it doesn’t matter what colour the killer is, does it?

“Or what religion they are? Or what ludicrous, violent ideology they are trying to pump. The point is it is violent. It’s ideological. White supremacy, radical Islam, they are both equally vile, equally repugnant.

“And yet, if this woman had been murdered by a Muslim? Page 30? You think?”

The Public Order Act 1986 is still in effect, is it not?

According to that Act, “A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred or, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”

The articles discussed above were certainly likely to stir up racial hatred because of their abusive or insulting attitude towards people of colour and/or immigrants.

So when will the owners, editors and writers of these pieces be prosecuted?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook