Maybe this is why proper, real journalists don’t do any investigating any more and only print what they’re told…
After all, if you were looking into a story and, like Tim Ireland, your reward was…
To be smeared, to have his mental health impugned, to be accused of being a paedophile, lied about, vilified, stalked, and finally his home address made public on the internet. He has had to involve the police.
…reach out to your local MP and find out what they think about this. No mobs, just a few quiet, well-informed questions to a few MPs.
A “polite letter-writing campaign,” if you will.
It doesn’t matter which party your MP is from, but you probably needn’t bother telling CCHQ or any relevant/senior members of David Cameron’s cabinet about this; they were informed days ago that all this was going on, and they haven’t said or done a damn thing about it.
Further to your recent FoI request please find attached reports on the
top ten sites visited by Vale employees during the months June – August
2009.
Unfortunately our software does not provide the functionality to report
on the number of minutes spent on each site, or to report on how many
times a particular website has been visited within a given period.
The Vale has 278 employees.
I hope this information is of assistance.
The results were sent in a .pdf format and are here, June, July and August.
I have been kindly invited to respond to a previous blog that argued the No Platform policy advocated by UAF is not the correct approach. Whilst I understand why many believe the way to stop the BNP is to share every platform with them, and enter into debates with them whenever they appear in the media arena, there are a number of difficulties with this tactic. I will try and make this response as short as possible.
Firstly, there is the question of historical evidence. If you are arguing that the BNP should be allowed to exist as a democratic political party, participate in elections, engage in debates alongside all the other political parties, and have their racist propaganda treated as a ‘view’, and that this is the best way to stop them, then the gaping hole in your argument is Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany. Hitler’s rise was through the democratic machinery of the state, starting out in a small extremist party, and ending up as a Fascist dictator. I need not spell out the details of the holocaust again, but the sheer scale of these horrific acts should serve as a warning to us all. The only thing that did work in the end was direct physical confrontation in the shape of one of the (if not the) bloodiest wars in human history. Democracy was no safeguard to these crimes, it enabled them. The BNP should not be given a platform. History shows us what can happen when Fascist parties are. By sharing a platform, you begin to create the legitimising conditions that can lead to the most extreme consequences imaginable.
But things are different now I hear you say. That would never happen here! Well, I imagine that the majority of the German population would never have thought that it could have happened there! If things are so different, why are we still having to deal with the threat of fascism and racism nearly 70 years on?
On the basis of evidence alone, the policy of sharing a platform and allowing Fascists to participate in democratic life must be discarded. If this was a scientific theory one was testing, it would be immediately negated, but there is a general reluctance to suggest that we should marginalise them and use direct action to prevent them being heard. This is Fascist itself isn’t it? People have a right to their own views?
The real issue at hand, and the one that places constraints on the choice of tactics that we should use, is the issue of free speech (I have argued previously on this blog site about this – please address it if you disagree). Allowing racist and Fascist parties to spout their propaganda, and defending it on the basis of freedom of speech is a complete misapplication of the notion of ‘freedom’ to ‘speech’. If we were in favour of freedom of choice, or freedom of action, we would not expect these ‘freedoms’ to include choosing to murder someone, or the freedom to rape someone. We understand freedom as bounded by some form of basic moral framework, and expressed within a social context.
Why then do we think that when applied to speech ‘freedom’ means saying whatever we want? We would not apply it in the same way to other ‘freedoms’. ‘Speech’ and ‘action’ are not isolated spheres. Saying whatever you want is not harmless, it does have consequences. Inciting and promoting racial hatred leads to physical acts of racial violence. Ask any victim of a racial crime, or the many people in this country that have to put up with racist abuse. Freedom of speech does not mean that you should have this right.
It is this misapplication that paralyses the current Government in allowing the party to exist, and also the many millions of opponents of the BNP who mistakenly believe that outlawing the party would somehow be anti-democratic. What actually happens is that a Fascist party, once in power, get’s rid of democracy and most freedoms.
Secondly, and following on from the point above, I also want to address the way that debate manifests itself, and to show the limited potential of engaging in debate with them. I watched the previously posted clip of the Nicky Campbell show. After 10 whole minutes of debate, I did not see the BNP being shown up hugely. There was the odd moment where Brons was not comfortable, and avoided the question, but this is behaviour we see from all politicians. The Reverend also brought in the notion of free speech I have previously addressed, and quickly the topic became derailed and muddled. By even having him on the show, Bron’s racist hatred has been presented as a ‘view’, and has not been treated with the contempt it deserves.
And if you are in any doubt about how giving Fascists a platform will not help show them up, then watch this clip of Andrew Marr interviewing Nick Griffin:
How brilliant was Marr at showing Griffin up?
Griffin may be many things, but he is not stupid. He knows what he can and can’t say, has been carefully rebranding the BNP, and will anticipate many of the questions that come his way. If he were to appear on question time, any audience questions would be made available upfront, giving him time to prepare. Sitting him alongside the leading members of the three main parties would confer status on him, without any guarantee that they would be able to show him up – we don’t trust them to do anything else right, so why this?
The only solution is to refuse to share a platform with them, and confronting them with direct action, whether that is trying to stop their festival of race hate, or standing up to the EDL in the streets of Birmingham or the Mosques of Luton.
To recap why:
Racism and Fascism is not a ‘view’ to be debated.
Sharing a platform legitimises these ‘views’.
There is a very limited potential for ‘showing up’ the BNP for what they are. Both mainstream TV programmes referred to above certainly do not show the BNP in a particularly bad light.
Allowing Fascist parties to participate in a democratic system was a contributing factor in creating the conditions in which Hitler rose to power.
We cannot risk making the same mistakes again.
There is much more that could be said on this matter, but there is hard evidence, from history and the present day, that shows the limitations of an approach to defeating the Fascists based on engaing them as a political opponent.
Scores of French riot police descended early this morning on the “jungle” camp in Calais, bulldozing makeshift tents and rounding up hundreds of illegal migrants hoping to stow away on lorries to Britain.
It’s a sorry state if affairs.
We all know why illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, whatever you want to call them, want to come here to this sceptred isle. Depending on who you ask the reasons range from: work; benefits; convert us all to Islam; endangered at home; want a better life; other family already here.
These guys in the ‘jungle’ in France, though. Looking for asylum in Britain. If they get here and can get a claim going, fair enough to them. But…
All the journalists and reporters I’ve heard on this story (and I don’t claim to have heard them all) have all asked why these refugees want asylum in Britain, but never asked why they’re not claim asylum in France when they’re already in France.
Is the French system that bad? Surely they don’t all have family here?
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing “and not actually cater for men”
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “there enough stalls on the market for affordable asian clothing?” What about school uniforms?
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “I find it offensive these get-ups being sold in a British supermarket, if it’s in their shops fine I can tolerate that! They should be intergrating with our ways and donning our dresscode! but oh what’s the use come 2020 we’ll all be wearing this attire anyway ,eating halal meat, kneeling to the east and obeying sharia law!”
… “I am waiting for the day they change their logo to an islamic one. …and slowly but surely they made their plans”
… “I have no objection to ethnic fashion, except on those streets of some of our major cities that have gone completely to the other extreme, stocking little with any appeal to the indigenous population.”
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “our Asian residents should be adopting western clothing as the norm whilst living in the UK.”
… “BYE BYE ASDA TESCO HERE I COME”
… “I rather think this is another placating excercise. Is it to make sure we all get used to seeing so many traditionally dressed immigrants on the streets that we forget who we are?”
… why does Asda need to bring in a range of Indian inspired clothing when “there are enough asian clothes shops in the asian no go ghettos”
… “Slowly slowly catshee monkey the take over in in your shops now ??.” [wtf that’s supposed to mean?]
… Asda are “Pandering to minorities with an eye to the future…….”
I’m not racist, but the Daily Mail is read by them.
Some councillor has siad some stuff about the BNP being contrary to everything a Welsh National hero, Orwain Glyndwr, and since then T-Shirts with Orwain and a slogan on them, printed by the BNP, have increased.
I’ve never heard of this Orwain Glyndor chap, but John Walker, the BNP National Deputy press officer to give him his full title, is quite convinced that Orain and the Nationalists are peas in a pod…
Orwain stood for the right of Wales to be Welsh, which is exactly what the BNP’s [sic] policy is
That’s not quite correct though, John. Is it? There’s a little more to it than that.
The BNP support the right for the home nations to be Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish as long as they adopt the BNPs’ version of their national identity.
The BNP do not support a Welshmans right to be any religion except Christian. Apparently, Christianity is the indigenous religion of these Isles. Why else would they make a big deal of how many mosques there are in Wales.
38 apparently. Handily, the BNP post lists them all. Why would they do that, I wonder? What does it matter where these mosques are. Why would the BNP list, for it’s readers, the addresses, including postcodes, of every mosque in Wales, when BNP members are probably the least likely to go visiting?
I hope no ones going to try to persuade some Welsh people to be more Welsh.
It is a little controversial about whether a No Platform policy actually does anything at all. Everyone has their opinion. This one is mine.
I do not believe in the no platform policy. There are ocassions where direct action and not allowing the fascist to speak is justified but not to, say, go on a programme or be in a debate because the BNP is also appearing is handing the fascists a chance to spout their perverted logic unhindered.
I believe that the direct action, of the type the UAF use is excellent.
In a situation like that, where the fascists are giving a statement, not debating or discussing things with other parties or public, then shutting them down, stopping them speaking, closing off the stream of racist propaganda, is the only thing to do.
In that situation they have a preprepared statement, they have a plan, an expected sequence of events. They are not interested in justifying themselves, they are just trying to get the words out there into the open so they can enter peoples consciousness and start to propagate and put doubts in peoples mind so the hearer can fill in the gaps in the logic themselves.
Because the anti-fascists have to go against what is, in the mind, now considered fact, they have to go much further than just assert that Fat Nick and his gang are wrong. The anti-fascist has to prove that Fat Nick is wrong. With evidence. That takes much longer and is harder to do than just assert things and always puts you on the back foot.
In that situation it is imperative that the message the racists want to get out does not leave their lips. Once it is out there it is much harder to counter and so harassement, heckling, disruption is the weapon of choice.
You go to a statement with the intention of argueing it, you’re not gonna get anywhere. You might as well saw your own cock off with a rusty cheese-knife for all the good it will do.
As I say above, direct action is good in some situations, but what about when the bigots are invited, due to impartiality rules, on to a TV debate?
The thing is, whatever you do you have to think about how it looks otherwise you end up in the position the UAF are in now…
[the] UAF finds itself in the unusual position of having to defend themselves for organising a protest against a party that the majority of people would probably accept are racist, and in general oppose.
With this in mind, you’ve got to be a bit careful about how direct action is used because you can make yourself out to be just as fascistic as the fascists.
In a debate environment, direct action doesn’t work.
Another option is to direct action is to go on the TV/radio programme, enter the university and debate them. But when you do, you have to remember you are not trying to change the mind of the racist, it usually takes something much more profound to make them come to their senses. When you enter a debate with these people, you are going to make them look stupid, you are going to pick holes in their logic, you are going to ask them awkward questions that they would rather not answer in case they make themselves look like the cunts they are… Jonathon Bartley expresses it well here (go to 5:57)…
When shutting the message down is not appropriate it needs to be shown up then and there. It needs questions, unexpected questions asked of it. The people listening need to go away with any questions or gaps in their thoughts from the fascists message answered already with answers that show up the contradictions, fallacies and bigotry for exactly what it is. If their message is not challenged at the time, what’s gonna happen? Are most people gonna look up all the anti-fascist writing on the internet? Of course not. It needs countering at the time.
So now, in a debate situation you can either make yourself look like a cunt and make the fascists look the victim or you can make themselves look the cunts they are or you can do one other thing.
Adopt a No Platform policy and let the fuckers get on with it unhindered.
After a few days of trying to find out anything concrete from an independent source, it is here, by Judith Townend…
The Groucho Club is to take libel action against an author of a book not yet published to prevent publication of allegations about the famous media haunt, Index on Censorship and Journalism.co.uk can report.
In October, a case management conference will take place at the Queen’s Bench division of the UK High Court to decide future progress of the case, Kapital Ventures and the Groucho Club London v Tyrone D Murphy and Classic Media Entertainment. The claimants expect to recover in excess of £15,000, it is stated in the claim form.
Previous to this, and the same on Index on Censorship, all that turned up in searches were comments almost exactly like the one left on my blog, press releases on free-press-release websites and a small blog by the author of the comments. Nothing authoritative or independent. Matt Wardman, who also had a comment left on his blog, tried contacting the Groucho Club directly, but they didn’t feel too chatty.
I was wary about this when brought to my attention as the manner of it looked like either a scam (that I hadn’t worked out the hook) or a ham-fisted attempt at promoting a book by an internet naive PR company. There may be an element of the latter, but it doesn’t seem that way now. At least not a scam anyway.
It seems, once again, that thanks to our archaic libel laws mean free speech is going to be either suppressed without proper chance of being proved correct or come at an enormous price, where the lawyers win.
The authors are currently seeking information to include in the book
but then further down lists Tyrone D Murphy as the sole author. That’s a pretty basic mistake that isn’t just a spelling mistake but makes the statement inaccurate.
In a post on his blog EF Orwell states that he is the author. Although he doesn’t mention the book or club by name, it is obvious that that is what he is talking about with the other information that we know. That’s not the usual thing to do is it? Would that get more help?
g-book.co.uk has the registrant recorded as ‘g-book’. The registrant of a domain has to be a proper, real person. Who is this site really registered to? Why have they obscured themselves? What have they to hide?
I know, I know. It’s the News of the World and the News of the World does have it’s own parking place at the Old Bailey car park.
Wouldn’t it be nice, though? To have see John Coombes and Dick Hamilton refute the claim…
A 12-year-old girl there with her dad (we are protecting her identity) held a golly called Winston over the fire as Coombes “charged” him with “mugging, rape, drug dealing”.
He sneered: “Right Winston, you’re about to get cooked. Anything else to say?
“Says he ain’t a drug dealer. He thinks he’s not black. He’s charged with being black. Now get on there.”
Skinhead Hamilton chipped in: “If he jumps off he’s innocent.” Coombes went on: “He’s guilty, guilty as charged.
“Let’s get a real one – in the town we’ll find one or two. They’ll also be guilty of the heinous crimes I charged him with – may God forgive your horrible soul.” Coombes repeated the charges then added: “He may have appeared innocent to you lot but I’m sure he done lots of things wrong.”
or for Andrew Brons to deny ever saying…
I’m less concerned about the presence of mosques than the presence of the people that use them. Being worried about the presence of a particular mosque is almost like looking at a disease like smallpox and saying it’s a problem with spots.
It would make a fantastic spectacle. These fuckers trying to deny their racist, fascist roots and all their rhetorical acrobatics to try and show how they’ve changed.
They won’t though. Because they can’t. Because underneath their carefully chosen words, they are exactly what we see them as. Racist, fascist cunts.
