Why Rupert Murdoch considers it worth his while to pay David Aaronovitch a large six figure sum for such puerile antics as tweeting that I am insane, is a conjecture I find difficult to resolve. Today this exchange occurred on twitter:
David Aaronovitch: This suggestion that if elected Corbyn could be quickly ousted is utter bollocks. Democracy allows Labour to commit Hara Kiri.
Mark Doran: @DAaronovitch I hope everyone is watching how these servants of the micro-elite try to paint “attracting popular support” as “committing suicide.”
Mark Doran: @DAaronovitch Craig finds the elite-serving contortions every bit as funny as I do
David Aaronovitch: @MarkJDoran I tend to find Craig Murray unpersuasive on the grounds of him being unhinged. I can see why you like him, though.
Mark Doran: Says the man who managed to find Bush and Blair credible. I can see why you liked them, though.
It is remarkably ironic that on being referred to an article which argues that views outside a very narrow neoliberal establishment narrative are marginalised and ridiculed by the media, the Murdoch hack’s response is that the author is unhinged. Aaronovitch could not have more neatly proved my point.
But something else struck me about the twitter record. Aaronovitch’ twitter account claims to have 78,000 followers. Yet of the 78,000 people who allegedly received his tweet about my insanity, only 1 retweeted and 2 favourited. That is an astonishingly low proportion – 1 in 26,000 reacted. To give context, Mark Doran has only 582 followers and yet had more retweets and favourites for his riposte. 1 in 146 to be precise, a 200 times greater response rate.
Please keep reading, I promise you this gets a great deal less boring.
Eighteen months ago I wrote an article about Aaronovitch’s confession that he solicits fake reviews of his books to boost their score on Amazon. In response a reader emailed me with an analysis of Aaronovitch’s twitter followers. He argued with the aid of graphs that the way they accrued indicated that they were not arising naturally, but being purchased in blocks. He claimed this was common practice in the Murdoch organisation to promote their hacks through false apparent popularity.
I studied his graphs at some length, and engaged in email correspondence on them. I concluded that the evidence was not absolutely conclusive, and in fairness to Aaronovitch I declined to publish, to the annoyance of my correspondent.
Naturally this came to mind again today when I noted that Aaronovitch’ tweets to his alleged legion of followers in fact tumble into a well of silence. I do not even tweet. The entire limit of my tweeting is that this blog automatically tweets the titles of articles I write. They are not aphorisms so not geared to retweet. Yet even the simple tweet “Going Mainstream” which marked the article Aaronovitch derided, obtained 20 times the reactions of Aaronovitch’s snappy denunciation of my mental health. This despite the fact he has apparently 10 times more followers than me. An initial survey seems to show this is not atypical.
In logic, I can only see two possible explanations. The first is that my correspondent was right and Aaronovitch fakes twitter followers like he does book reviews. The second is that he has a vast army of followers, nearly all of whom find him dull and uninspiring, and who heartily disapproved en masse of his slur on my sanity. I opt for the second explanation, that he is just extremely dull, on the grounds that Mr Aaronovitch’s honesty and probity were never questioned, m’Lud.
Politics
(Cilla) Black was a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party during the 1980s and publicly voiced her admiration of Margaret Thatcher, stating in 1993 that Thatcher “put the Great into Great Britain”.[34] In April 1992 she appeared on stage at a Conservative Party rally and made prominent calls for the party’s re-election under the leadership of John Major.[35] But in an interview in 2004 with The Guardian, Black claimed that she was “apolitical”.[36] The Liverpool Echo also quoted her as saying: “as for the politics thing, I’m not a Conservative.”[37] In August 2014, Black was one of 200 public figures who were signatories to a letter to The Guardian opposing Scottish independence in the run-up to September’s referendum on that issue.
Oh dear, but RIP Cilla. Shame you betrayed your roots.
Jerusalem Gay Pride: Israel teenage stabbing victim dies
3 hours ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33752111
‘A teenage girl who was stabbed at a Gay Pride march in Jerusalem has died from her wounds, doctors say.
Shira Banki, 16, was one of six people attacked at the event on Thursday.
She was rushed to the Hadassah Medical Centre with serious wounds, but doctors were unable to save her. The other victims suffered various degrees of injuries.
Yishai Schlissel, an ultra-Orthodox Jew, who carried out a similar attack in 2005, was arrested at the scene.
Dramatic images showed the suspect reaching inside his coat and raising a knife above his head.
He then began stabbing marchers while screaming, before being tackled by a police officer.’
His record including prison for a previous attack. A member of the Haredi sect and a settler in Modi’in Illit which was established in 1994 and built on the land of five Palestinian villages: Ni’lin, Kharbata, Saffa, Bil’in and Dir Qadis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishai_Schlissel
Wrt to the nice tribute about Cilla Black above (19:04), it’s always struck me as incredibly silly for some entertainer to raise a flag on one side of the political divide. Unless that’s a large part of their shtick, of course, such as with the late great Rik Mayall.
Surely nobody with any sense would be influenced by an entertainer, particularly not with some vacuous slogan (eg. “put the Great into Great Britain”). But it will surely make about half the population suddenly not like you so much, which cannot be a terribly wise move for a person who’s career depends on public appeal.
Notwithstanding that endorsing the Establishment and Establishment politics is unlikely to harm your career much. Endorsing politics for the people would do you no good at all, in the reporting by the corporate media at least.
Mary “regrets”, as follows:
“Oh dear, but RIP Cilla. Shame you betrayed your roots.”
________________
Not QUITE sure that the bit about betraying her roots is CORRECTt, given that throughout the 20th century very many what were called “working class” people voted CONSERVATIVE.
Sources: Mark Abrams; David Butler; etc.
Indeed, withut those “working class” votes, the Conservatives would have found it difficult to from the govt to win any of the general elections in that century.
Daniel
I just wanted to thank you for your denunciation of Chris Spivey (above). I’s sure you will agree with me that Mr Spivey is the sort of blogger who gives Jew-haters and conspiracy theorists a bad name.
🙂
To keep people informed, because a fortnight ago the BBC was still pushing the line that the separatists brought down MH17, I bring to the attention of readers of this blog speculation that Israel may have been responsible for the crash over Eastern Ukraine in which 298 people lost their lives. Again it comes from Sott.net, which revealed yesterday an exclusive about purchased air-traffic control recordings from the Ukrainian secret services which allegedly took place between the Ukrainian Air Traffic Control and a Ukrainian fighter pilot which was tracking MH17, and which none of the dissenters here chose to question. This article below was published before the transcripts of the recordings, and also mentions that a bomb may have been placed on board MH17.
http://www.sott.net/article/282538-By-way-of-deception-MH17-sabotaged-by-Israeli-security-team-at-Amsterdam-Schiphol-airport
I read these articles because they go where MSM investigative journalists (are there any) fear to tread. The author does not support Russia and believes that Ukraine should be independent. Although only circumstantial one of the points the author makes is that Israel could have done this to detract from the invasion of Palestine which started at the same time.
Resident Dissident
2 Aug, 2015 – 1:36 pm
@ Doug Scorgie “The Fraud Act 2006 replaced fraud offences covered by the Theft Act 1968.”
……………………
@ ResDis “Not quite the case if you could be bothered to check”
http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=2448&parent_id=2439
“The point I’m making is that if lawyers felt that they could make a case for criminal prosecutions to stick then they would do so on in relation to the cases that have become time barred – the fact that they haven’t suggests that they don’t share your view.”
…………………..
Dear Mr Resident Dissident, there are (were) no offences covered by the Theft Act 1968 that are (were) “time barred.”
Please explain yourself in more detail.
“I bring to the attention of readers of this blog speculation…”
and
“about purchased air-traffic control recordings from the Ukrainian secret services which *allegedly* took place between the Ukrainian Air Traffic Control and a Ukrainian fighter pilot..”
and
“Although only circumstantial…”
and
“.. Israel *could* have done this to detract from the invasion of Palestine..”
_________________________
Lot of speculatin’ going on there. 🙂
Mr Scorgie
Rather than asking Resident Dissident to do your homework for you, why don’t you read the three acts cited for yourself and, when you’ve finished that task, tell us under which provisions of which act the mis-selling constituted a criminal act entailing jail time.
Thank you.
Habbabkuk, you should read the articles and criticise them, not me for protecting my personal integrity by using, as all journalists do, modifying adverbs and other journalistic devices. These articles are not my work but certainly as worthy as anything the BBC produces. You will notice similar devices in this BBC report which does not even mention its own Russian-based journalist whose report on eye-witness accounts went up and then was taken down because it did not fit the agenda. WHen will the world wake up?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28357880
Jeremy Corbyn speaking in Liverpool yesterday evening. It’s a bad quality video. I post it to show the huge crowds that turn out for Corbyn. No wonder the British Establishment are bricking themselves…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve4fSA94TOo
Here’s the problema with liberal progressives. They are all mealy-mouthed about free speech for the sub-humans to the denigration of the opposition. Craig wants to create a ‘level’ playing field by giving the t*****) a free hand to say what they wish. But they (T*****) seek more than equity and equanimity. They seek control and relevance without doing their homework and craig wants to make it easier for them.
When craig understands there is no compromise that will get him elected, maybe that will change.
Apart from her appearances on Top of the Pops, Cilla Black appears not to have had a friendship with Savile. She was a friend of Cliff Richard.
When I was looking for info I came across this about acquaintances of Cameron.
‘David Cameron and Conservative Party predators
What information can David Cameron share with Scotland Yard’s paedophile unit concerning his parliamentary colleagues?
1) Alistair Cooke, Lord Lexden, of Conservative Central Office
2) Derek Laud, former parliamentary lobbyist
3) Kenneth Clarke MP
4) Patrick Rock de Bescombes ‘
http://www.scribd.com/doc/263799844/David-Cameron-and-Conservative-Party-predators
The latter, Patrick Rock, resigned from his position as Deputy Director of Policy at No 10 in advance of his arrest from No 10 and then appeared in court. Page 7 above link.
Ex-Cameron aide Patrick Rock appears in court over child abuse images
Former adviser pleads not guilty at Southwark crown court to making and possessing indecent images of children
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/19/cameron-aide-patrick-rock-in-court-child-abuse-images
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Rock
There is nothing more on the internet apart from this FoI request
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/trial_of_patrick_rock and
http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/sex-in-sydney-patrick-rock.html
What happened to him and the court case?
“Here’s the problema with liberal progressives. They are all mealy-mouthed about free speech for the sub-humans to the denigration of the opposition. Craig wants to create a ‘level’ playing field by giving the t*****) a free hand to say what they wish. But they (T*****) seek more than equity and equanimity. They seek control and relevance without doing their homework and craig wants to make it easier for them.”
___________________
With respect, the above is an insult both to the “sub-humans” (interesting choice of words, that; now I wonder which historical group used to use that word?)who try to inject a measure of sanity into this blog and to our host Craig, here accused of partiality.
If Ben would feel happier on another blog which censors in order to impose the party line then he should perhaps leave his droppings there and not here.
The BBC version. You can see the line that is taken in this programme note.
Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian spy, was poisoned in a London hotel in November 2006. He drank tea laced with radioactive polonium, and died three weeks later. It was designed to be the perfect murder, and the cause of death almost went undiscovered. So who killed him and why? Richard Watson investigates the polonium trail and reveals how it leads to President Putin’s door.
Reporter Richard Watson
First shown: 4:30am 1 Aug 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0658nks/our-world-a-very-political-assassination
And after Mr Scorgie has read the various Acts he might wish to ask himself why those who claims for mis-selling have been time barred are not pursuing non time barred cases under the Theft Act if there legal case is so strong.
I see Lady Dorking who has no problem in betraying her roots in the Red Republic of Surrey has reached a new low. The poor women is dead, she entertained and gave pleasure to millions through her singing and entertainment programmes to which her political views were a complete and utter irrelevance. The only thing that is being betrayed here is a sense of decency.
Sorry if my post about Rock seems to have upset someone. Just the facts of the matter.
Especially for those who don’t.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33750766
With regard to the Ben Fellows case, a reminder of the hassle that anti-paedophile campaigners have been receiving:
https://twitter.com/ShyKeenan/status/627902043412373504
http://www.cps.gov.uk/eastern/cps_eastern_news/penny_mellor/
RobG
You forget that Litvinenko also saw himself as an anti-paedophile campaigner.
For the usual legal reasons I have to desist from giving a very long list of Great British Paedos who are still alive and hold positions of high power.
“Strange to behold my earlier challenge for evidence of Litvineko having left traces of polonium on BA flights between London and Israel appears not to have been taken up.”
Well the BBC programme linked by Mary makes no mention of his flights to Israel. Now there’s a surprise. This article, while not mentioning Litvinenko’s trips to Israel, is a lot more balanced than the one-sided BBC report which was obviously edited by the spooks, who judging by Litvinenko’s KGB background (only wrong if you’re called Putin) and our secret services failed attempt to recruit Lugovoi suggests a motive for why they want Lugovoi in the frame.
A taster.
“Consider the questions that remain open almost 18 months after Litvinenko’s death. There are a great many of them; some overlap, but they are roughly divisible into five clusters.
The most obvious relate to the polonium-210 that was identified as the cause of his illness just before he died. Then there is the role of Andrei Lugovoi. The Crown Prosecution Service says it has enough evidence to charge with murder, but the only third party to have seen the papers, Edward Epstein, says the case is extremely thin. Third, there are the mysterious activities of Litvinenko himself. The fourth cluster of questions concerns the part, if any, played by the British secret services, and, last, the role of the exiled Russian oligarch, the enigmatic Boris Berezovsky.”
Enjoy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-litvinenko-files-was-he-really-murdered-819534.html
I should have mentioned the above Indy article was before Lebedev took control. Otherwise there was no chance of it being published. It asks questions something we seem to have stopped doing. Now we just provide answers.
Resident Dissident, I’m not sure where you’re coming from with that statement?
All I will say is that Litvinenko, with the way he died, could have only been murdered by powers that have an advanced nuclear programme. Chief suspect, of course, is Russia.
With regard to Arafat, and the accusations of polonium poisoning, the jury still seems to be out on that one, despite the recent autopsy.
What a wonderful world we live in…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM
(79 million views on CIATube!)
@Fred “But you would have to buy millions of pounds worth and have some very elaborate equipment to isolate enough out to kill anybody. It’s sold in incredibly tiny amounts either electroplated into the eye of a needle or incorporated into resin disks.”
You mean the anti-static gizmos,no you buy from the backdoor.
Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister advised the UK back in 2006 to follow the trail which caused Litvinenko’s death to Germany and Israel.
http://www.sspconline.org/opinion/Polonium210andRadiologicalTerrorism_AnimeshRoul_291206
And this from the Washington Post before the press had its instructions that Putin did it.
“In Moscow on Wednesday, prosecutors said they were investigating former Yukos shareholder and Khodorkovsky partner Leonid Nevzlin for possible involvement in the Nov. 23 poisoning death in London of former Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko, the Associated Press reported. A spokesman for Nevzlin, who lives in exile in Israel, called the probe “ridiculous.” ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701501.html
Dr Helen Caldicott was quoted at 2:31 am; thanks, BrianFujisan. I agree with nearly all of this, especially the damage to health caused by the products of nuclear reactors, and the vast amounts of money wasted on the nuclear industry, compared with which the investment in renewables is minuscule.
I should point out one fallacy:
The faulty logic is obvious: there is already so much plutonium that no one knows what to do with it. It has become a liability requiring constant, expensive security. Decades ago, nuclear power stations were indeed part of the weapons manufacturing process – for example both the UK Magnox plants and the Chernobyl plants were dual-purpose electricity / plutonium producers, but there is now such a glut of plutonium that it is no longer the case.
Dr Caldicott then describes what I believe to be the real reason for the continued development of nuclear power stations:
I answer her, yes! The politicians understand that perfectly! The Iranian politicians see it too, which is why they want to build eight nuclear power stations all over Iran. Why else would politicians, usually so concerned to reduce expenditure, wish to “invest” in such an expensive liability as nuclear fission? The proposed bill for “decommissioning” Sellafield is sixty billion pounds. It is to take centuries. We should expect it to follow other nuclear projects in costing many times as much as the initial estimate. Imagine how much infrastructure of renewable generation could be installed with that much money.
It is madness, but lacing your own country with fragile canisters of indestructible deadly poison for which no antidote can ever be found is the best insurance against ever being attacked by other governments, since they will not wish to contaminate their own territories. War must be abolished forever and replaced by international law, to render unnecessary this crazy form of defence; the only alternative is species suicide.
Giyane makes an error at 2:51 pm:
No, the fatal hazard is only to those in the battle zones in which they are used. This is a reference to depleted uranium (DU), which is the waste product from uranium enrichment and is less radioactive than even natural uranium.
The main danger is because uranium is highly toxic chemically; when DU munitions hit anything the DU is dispersed as an aerosol of fine particles which are then inhaled and get into water and food supplies. The hazard from its tiny radioactivity is entirely overshadowed by straightforward poisoning.
Another danger may be that some munitions may have been made from contaminated DU from the nuclear reprocessing industry. This is known as “dirty DU”; it is meant to be carefully regulated but I strongly suspect a commercial cover-up of the use of DU contaminated with other radioisotopes.
DU in the form of solid metal is really pretty harmless so long as you don’t fire lumps of it into armour plating.
Clark….. Sorry My Friend ,,i knew you had Some Knwoldge Of sorts…