UPDATED: Having spent the afternoon researching, the evidence tends to support Emma Barnett’s claim that she had been personally unaware that her family’s wealthy lifestyle was funded by the pimping and sex-trafficking activities of her parents. The emails between herself and her father about “whores” referenced by the Manchester Evening News, contained denials by her father to Emma that he remained involved. I therefore have here deleted my earlier entry which suggested the existence of these emails may argue against her claim of ignorance.
But it is the wealth of her background rather than the source of the funds which concerns me here. As a Telegraph and Sunday Times columnist, it is pretty hard to argue that Barnett is not “out” as a wealthy Tory – just like Robinson, Kuenssberg, Paxman, Andrew Neil et al. In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive Tory bias of its political journalism.
She also gets time on Sky News’ The Pledge to air her silly right wing views with the likes of Nick Ferrari, Greg Dyke, Rachel Johnson and Carole Malone! and others from a pool of nine. They sit round a five sided table and yack.
She is very opinionated and sure of herself.
Exclusive from Robin Ramsay at Lobster Magazine
https://mobile.twitter.com/LobsterMagazine/status/869049100355764224
Tories Covered up Jimmy Savil scandal at 1997 election – Stephen dorrel implicated
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster73/lob73-jimmy-savile.pdf
How odd it is that the newspapers were not quite so squeamish about visiting the sins of the father on Ed Milliband when they wanted to undermine any hope of his election in 2015!
Bert.
Not sure I would class being a socialist as a sin, Ralph was accused of hating Britain which was a proven spurious claim and typical of modern day politics
BLAIRITES! Discover the socialist within you and support Labour. Keynesianism isn’t extreme or unrealistic. It’s groovy and cool!
Craig, a tour de force.
So borris Johnson arranging GBH is just the tip of an iceberg.
How do we have a press so clearly unanimous in complicity with the face to come out and talk about those victims like some sort of moral agents.
They are ALL cynical users of the tragedy in Manchester. And this in why I liken this culture to fascism. Because they simply don’t give a shit. As people, children, are slaughtered in the steers in the uk. There is something missing in them. Morality. And they are happy to let it go on as their actions around the world intensify our threat.
And to all the nationalist (racists) out’s there. The deaths they don’t give a monkeys about are not just the ones “over there” that they happily fund. They are “OUR” people. “OUR” children slaughtered on the streets.
You think they have no part in this? That what they do elsewhere has no effect. Think again. Just think ffs.
And not just the press Ishmael but the broadcasters too including the BBC!
The BBC is contaminated right across its news/current affairs /politics network. And we pay for it!
Look across the pond too. I am no admirer of Trump but the behaviour of the media there has been shocking and they’re still pissed that Hillary didn’t win. (Do they ever consider that Trump won because he was standing against someone with Hillarys baggage?) It is so bad that the Washington Post is publishing all sorts of allegations, even when they don’t know the source! And all the leaks are coming from the intelligence agencies……the same people who wanted the likes of Snowden, Assange and Manning locked up for decades for espionage! The BBC is ready and willing to repeat everything the Post publishes and present it as fact.
Politics is a dirty business but the media is the filthiest cesspit ever. And the really scary thing is that not enough people find it terrifying.
Yes, And It really creates issues when it comes to taxes.
Now getting her knickers in a twist.
https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett/status/869491579014270976
No one is denying JC didn’t have the figure handy but even as he was searching for it she was taunting and goading him and deliberately distracting him! She was being a complete b-tch! Again I could only marvel at his self control!
@ Jo May 30, 2017 at 16:29
I suspect he has learnt from it. It’s easy in retrospect, but his answer should have been, ‘I don’t have it on the tip of my tongue – would you like me to check it?
He’s a smart cookie; I don’t think he will fall for that crap again very often.
It’s British Broadcasting for* the Conservatives now.
*and on behalf of
Maybe they should call it “Whores’ hour” instead?
Skim read her article and noticed she describes her father as a ‘white collar criminal’. So is pimping and trafficking now done from behind a desk?
Evidently there is more snobbery among violent criminals than I realised
Wow, that really is a white wash,
Fuck off BBC – THE CHANCELLOR, Philip Hammond, didn’t know how much his own pet project, HS2, cost, yet this was not mentioned on your website or on the broadcast news. Today, you are all over Corbyn for forgetting a child care figure – it’s your top story. In the same item, you segue straight into May giving her “strong and stable” guff in response.
Shameless Tory propagandists.
Dear Craig,
Your latest post got me thinking on three aspects of what was raised:-
1. The source of one’s fortune ( be that ‘good’ – or – ‘bad’ fortune).
2. Personal responsibly relative to the source of one’s ‘fortune’.
3. The actual evidence led in the matter/case:-
“Police found emails between Mr. Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his “whores”.
It might be better to put things in historical perspective regarding why the post particularly tweaked my interest.
I was born in the Caribbean ( Jamaica). My lineage is African and East Indian. Beyond my paternal grandmother the prior generation were slaves. In Jamaica the Indian population arrived ( were brought as indentured servants – to fill the labour gap left by the freed slaves who no longer wanted to suffer the stigma which manual work on the land constituted under slavery – cf. Fiji/Britain’s importation of Indians). But moving forward:-
1. – Inheritances
Queen Elizabeth I launched an enterprise with the assistance of John Hawkins in the Atlantic African Slave Trade and the wealth therefrom inuring from generation to generation has been inherited all the way down to Elizabeth 11 ( The sins….etc.)
I had cause to remind former PM David Cameron about his heritage when he offered to build Jamaica a spanking new prison to save the UK money on incarcerating Jamaicans who had transgressed and were serving sentences in UK prisons ( see also – for a scholarly analysis: – http://www.uwipress.com/books/britain%E2%80%99s-black-debt-0)
I said this to Cameron:-
https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/open-letter-british-prime-minister-david-cameron
The past does inform the present.
N.B. The actual reparations argument takes a somewhat different tact beyond the personal and does invoke responsibility upon the nation state ( e.g. the Natives of North America – inclusive Canada and the US; the German payments for the Holocaust; the apology and reparations to the Maoris; the Australians of European descent addressing compensation to the Aborigines and so on…)
2. – Personal responsibility
I was 16 when I arrived in England and thereafter went all the way to University and post- grad ultimately to pursue a profession in the law. Going back a bit – my parents had laid a foundation ( my father via initially construction and business endeavours to earn money – and –my mother’s intellect sending me to school from an early age and reading to me endlessly as a small child. I did not find learning difficult or in any way a challenge). I inherited much from my parents and undeniably am the beneficiary of their honest efforts.
When a building has a solid foundation it does have a better chance of rising upwards and being sustained over time.
3-The evidence
Ms. Barnett would have to share the actual evidence led if one were to make an honest and accurate analysis of where it led.
In the circumstances :-
i) Does she find herself much like Elizabeth 11 being an inheritor of ‘blood money’? ; or
ii) In all the circumstances – does she apply herself, accept educational opportunity – then let her conscience and her station in life determine what in principle she does next and how she lives her life?
All very thought provoking – not just for me – but for everyone who might care to examine their own lives.
Courtenay,
Yes, my father was on the wrong side of the law a good deal too, though not in anything nearly so appalling as pimping. False accounting in the gambling industry.
Fortunately he lost all of his ill-gotten gains when I was six thus leaving me without moral dilemmas!
The case of Ms Barnett is rather different. She seems to have benefited well into adulthood, and it seems the emails she was exchanging with her father about “his whores” who were being trafficked, were most probably in adulthood. Of course it is possible her emails were trying to intervene on behalf of the women, but that does not seem to be the case from the information in this article.
It was a Crown Court trial. Is it possible to get a transcript?
Looks like you need to complete an EX107 form for application to the Court and you need an approved transcription agency to produce it for you at your expense.
https://www.thetranscriptionagency.com/index.php/court-legal?id=82
https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/ex107-eng.pdf
Wow you never fail to amaze me with what you uncover. I now know like minded folk exist at all levels. I battled corruption and injustice in Perth and Kinross council as a teacher trade union activist.
There are in my experience very devious women who are happy to see other women abused and push them further down so they can rise.
However much people may find her biassed, I think raking this over is pretty unpleasant behaviour. Do the people who think this is a good thing to highlight, also think it was cool when the right wing press highlighted how Corbyn’s aide James Schneider’s dad was done for fraud or something, which paid for HIS private school? Or is it only people who disagree with us who we think it’s ok to do this to?
Caroline
Did you read the bit that said
“Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his “whores”.”
If this was just about her father I would agree with you absolutely. But the question of how much she was herself implicated needs to be addressed.
I think the point is that she benefited materially from her father’s pimping into adulthood, that her mother knew about the pimping, and that there is evidence that her father wrote to her about his ‘whores’.
The more time I take in this blog the more I realise iv a lot of things I need to check myself about. A good thing. But never easy.
Reminds me of tai chi teacher who said your young & can learn a lot. But more with the attitude of you’re an offensive idiot with a lot to fucking learn. He was so right.
..Every day.
Barnet was rude and aggressive. Corbyn was his usual courteous self.
Whn you consider that May’s manifesto is sketchy to say the least, her attempt to characterise Corbyn’s momentarily forgetting a detail from Labour’s detailed one was just another boring nasty attempt to make Labour look like a poor leader.
The Tories are scared witless and very angry that the social justice agenda has returned to politics. These people only love money they have zero feelings for those who are suffering under their policies.
“The love of money is the root of all evil”
“By their fruits shall ye know them”
Some quite quotable bit in the Bible!
Once again, bias. And dishonesty by the BBC. Thank goodness for social media that we can easily get to the truth.
Concerning the Woman’s Hour interview JC did earlier….this is something to shoot back against those claiming all the JC supporters are being racist/sexist towards EB. It would also be useful to ask those Tories and bourgeois feminists who claim to care about women getting abused on race and gender online, why did/do they join in when Diane Abbot and Jack Monroe was/were/are getting monstered
Interesting piece on Emma Barnett, Israel and anti-semitism here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/there-s-nothing-new-about-conflating-criticism-of-israel-with-anti-semitism-9629803.html
I’m fascinated that Women’s Hour gave him such aggressive questioning on this. Listen to it – she’s firing questions in querying where the money is coming from, deliberately complicating the request for the figure. “We cannot trust you with our money”. All this – when he’s offering £4 billion + free childcare to young families. “Why on earth are you giving free childcare to people who can afford it?” This is Woman’s hour! Not a neo-liberal think tank like the IFS. This is a programme that should be congratulating him for helping families across the country to make childcare affordable. This is the clearest example yet that the entire media is just a vast conservative superstructure masquerading both as a free press and now state broadcasting.
BBC News at 6 lead with Corbyn not being able to reel off the cost of a specific policy (which is costed in the Manifesto).
We no longer live in a democracy.
Presumably daddy is a Remainer – all that cheap Eastern European “Labour” on tap!
Thank you Craig Murray, for the background to this hostile interviewer. She set herself up as an Aunt Sally and deserves all she gets.
See David Dimbelbys comments today on right wing bias media coverages
I found DD’s comments amusing coming from someone who chairs a Programme where he frequently shows bias and rudeness to certain guests and where – we now know – A very dodgy audience selection process applies! He talks about a right wing bias in the press yet overlooks the wall to wall bias right across the BBC! Priceless!
I have read Emma Barnett in The Daily Telegraph a few years ago. I can’t say I was particularly impressed, but that is not the point. I just read what Craig wrote – as if it is current news. He gives absolutely no indication that it is not.
He is writing about stuff that is over 10 years old, giving the impression that it is current news.
I find this completely out of order. Craig you are doing what you accuse others of.
I think you should delete – or at least edit what you have just written to make it plain it is very old news.
I expect better than this from you.
Tony
Barnett chose to write about the matter herself less than a year ago, Tony, and claimed she knew nothing of her father’s activities until his second conviction.
Her mother was convicted in 2013 for offences in 2012. Her father’s second conviction was in 2012. That is not ten years.
@Tony I do not accept the “but this is old news” argument here. Would you accept the same in relation to the Corbyn/IRA misdirections I wonder (old news answered dozens of times already)? Shifting to extreme cases: Would you say that Holocaust Denial is now OK, because it all happened decades ago (no)? Should “historic child abuse” cases be dropped because the clock kept ticking? Considering extremes can help clarify our moral philosophies.
Were it the case that “this is old news and she long since cleared her name” then I could accept your line of thought. Unfortunately, she is implicated by those emails, and has not given any adequate accounting that I can source.
Furthermore, given the typically argumentative, holier-than-thou barrage of noise that assaults our ears from emoting right wing mouthpieces across history (weaponised to appeal to the fearful and easily influenced), it is not unreasonable to ask that they themselves adopt a little of the same high standard they shrilly demand from opponents whenever it suits them.
What do you suppose would happen if a pro-Corbyn personality were found to have this level of dodgy baggage? Would it be all over the BBC and other propaganda feeds? Would you be OK with that?
It seems to me it’s ok building up a picture of what’s going on using past events (and most are) that feature as part of someones life today in some way, especially those in critical positions.
Indeed we should make judgements about people we see, not just as many do Paxman or Boris, Just on superficial presentations as the BBC shows them. But as the moral agents they are presented as, whole people. One assumes for instance that many Torys know what Borris can be or is like. To the extent we know among people who we interact with it’s very hard to hide some things, we should asses things. What kind of people are they.
I had absolutely no idea about Boris and his attempted GBH, it did not happen yesterday but hell, I’m still shocked and your dam right I want to know about it. I don’t care if people put a date on it. We don’t, can’t, all keep ourselves glued to the papers.
My feeling is we do need to do a jezza on them. For he has withstood a shitstorm of this (and almost totally nonsense) and is still standing with self respect as he most certainly should in my view. And iv been watching. What I haven’t been seeing is all this other stuff about others. And I get the impression that dirt is not nonsense (forgetting some figures) but real serious business, and should stick for a long long time.
And I’m not being simplistic, sure if I can see some recommence in their lives I’m going to consider that. But for some things sorry just doesn’t cut it. I don’t know what someone would have to do given what I already know. But I don’t see many dedicating there whole life balance the dept many surly have to pay. On the contrary they go on as before.
It’s like OOO those figures, as your mate makes planes to brutally beat someone up in the dark. Or as devastating weapons are sold to people killing kids with them.
What kind of world are we living in? A dream one.
I’m with Tony here.
until fair ,and unbiased coverage is restored to the bbc,every single license payer who believes in the supposed edict and creed of the bbc in impartial reporting, should with hold their license fee on the grounds of having been missold a product.complain to the trades description act or whatever passes for the regulatory body. the bbc is manifestly broke when it comes to political reporting,this election has magnified the problem better than any hubble telescope could have done.
Amen!
No attempt to hide the blatant bias of those who direct and present BBC news, yet still everybody must contrive in the fiction of its neutrality.
Craig, are you able to shine some much-needed light on this James Harding character, the Director of BBC news and current affairs? He is the guy who ultimately decides which news stories are presented on the beeb and how they are framed. I’ve heard that besides formerly having been editor of Murdoch’s Times, he’s a shrink-the-state fanatic and close friend of George Osborne..
Another great post Craig, keep em coming!
Not sure you’re in the best place to comment on journalistic standards after this particular debacle. How about ‘doing some checking’ before hitting the ‘publish button’ on your thinly-veiled smear?
What does he need to check? Please say what is inaccurate in this piece.
Oops, didn’t see Craig had to update it. Fair play.
You mean delete it.
What on earth are you talking about? There is no distortion in play here. Please support your assertions with some fact-based reasoning. Do you work for her?
It was not inaccurate. It was perhaps unfair, which is why I took it down. All the facts in it were perfectly correct.
Come on Craig. You clearly suggested she knew about her father’s business. Of course that smear made your article inaccurate. Lucky for you no one archived the post on waybackmachine. Probably best to just delete this page.
I would suggest anyone does know about their fathers business. But that’s not the same as saying it is known.
Is that what was said? Id guess not. And what was said was amended. Stands fine imo.
No, it said that as reported by the Manchester Evening News it appeared to contradict her story in the Daily Mail. Doubtless it is still discoverable on the internet somewhere.
I did not have to change it at all. I did so purely from a sense of fairness.
Craig
But the quote in the MEN was relevant and contemporaneous. Yours was neither. The MEN was a court report. Yours was a political attack piece.
You highlighted something about her family that was completely irrelevant to the Corbyn story. You absolutely smeared her by association. There is no equivalence between your piece and the MEN.
You are talking complete and utter nonsense.
The report in the MEN was several years old, was about her mother’s conviction, and was relevant to Emma because it stated that the evidence in the case included emails between Emma and her father referring to his “whores”. It ties Emma in to the case rather than it being just about her parents. That was what made it relevant. Had the whole thing just been about her parents I would not have mentioned it at all.
Why do you only ever comment when you think you see a chance to play Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of A Bitch?
http://www.ericberne.com/games-people-play/now-ive-got-you-you-son-of-a-bitch-nigysob/
Jeremy was excellent tonight on the One Show. Warm, human and humorous so unlike ‘she who must be obeyed’.
I missed it. I watched an excruciating interview with Kezia Dugdale. Talk about, “Pass the razor blades!”