High Tory, ex Daily Telegraph and Murdoch, expensive private school, Emma Barnett is BBC Politics’ rising star and stood in as host of the BBC flagship Marr programme on Sunday. She was there rude and aggressive to Labour’s Barry Gardiner. The “highlight” of her career so far was during the general election when on Radio 4 Women’s Hour she demanded instant top of the head recall of complicated figures from Jeremy Corbyn, a ploy the BBC never turns on the Tories.
The most interesting fact about Emma Barnett is that her exclusive private education was funded by her parents who were pimps and brothel keepers on a large scale, for which both were convicted.
I know of no compelling evidence as to whether Barnett was, or was not, complicit in her parents’ activities, which financed her education into adulthood. But that this background is interesting and unusual is not in doubt. However the MSM’s image protector, “Philip Cross”, has been assiduous in, again and again, deleting the information about Barnett’s parents from Wikipedia. Not only has Cross deleted the referenced information of her parents being brothel-keepers, he has repeatedly inserted the ludicrous euphemisms that her father was a “businessman” and her mother a “housewife”.
Cross has also deleted references to Barnett – who wrote for the Telegraph and then for Murdoch’s Times, being “right wing”. He has instead inserted claims that criticisms of Emma Barnett following her aggressive Corbyn interview were “anti-semitic”, in a classic Cross move to undermine any left-wing point. Naturally he had references from the Times and the Guardian – evidence free articles – to back up these claims – and naturally from journalists whose Wikipedia pages Cross curates. You get the circle?
On 21 June 2017 editor Alfonz-kiki complained that Cross’s continual whitewashing of Barnett’s entry was by “paid PR”. He pointed out that he had references on her parents’ brothels from the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. Alfonz-kiki is one of scores to have separately noticed and complained of Cross’s activities over years, but Cross has been defended by Wikipedia again and again and again.
Barnett is demonstrably right wing from her Murdoch and Telegraph columns. Her expensive private education – which got her where she is – was undeniably paid for by the proceeds of prostitution and by the trafficking in persons that led to the operation being closed down. But Philip Cross makes sure you can see none of that on Wikipedia.
In case you are saying that Cross is justified, Barnett’s parents activities were not her fault and ought not be on her Wikipedia page, let me remind you of one thing. The same “Philip Cross” edited my own Wikipedia page to state that my wife Nadira used to be a stripper, sourced to the Mail. Cross abuses family information, as all other information, to defame dissidents or to burnish Establishment defenders, not according to a moral code.
Craig Murray, “human rights defender”: are you going to remove the comment from Sharp Ears suggesting Cross be killed as punishment for the allegations you published here?
It would be mass murder as Cross cannot be one person
Except that’s not what was said. Try using the power of reading. It may save you further embarrassment in future.
I tried hard to use my power of reading 🙂 But I still see the picture of a life taken away violently.
May be it is not what Sharp Ears intended to say, may be I’ve got too much imagination…
But I agree with what the what,
if we consider ourselves civilized humans, we must rather use civilized methods to stop Philip Cross.
Mr. Murray shows how picky that Philip Cross is, cutting off or bringing up certain type of information. It is obvious.
Again – “Philip Cross” cannot be one person.
OK, let’s say ‘Philip Cross, the info-editing factory’ 🙂
An incredibly useful compass article, along with other articles on how Philip Cross burnishes or denigrates the reputations of public figures; this allows readers of mainstream media to read with more insight and judgement. Two easily accessible lists would be even more useful. Nothing more than headings of: Burnished by Philip Cross and another with a heading of Denigrated by Philip Cross, would do much to assist us ordinary peasants to read with discrimination.
You and others could not have spelled out more clearly what Philip Cross is doing on / to Wikipedia. The fat controller Jimmy Wales himself is aware. So now we wait to see what Wikipedia is all about. Thus far the silence and inaction on Philip Cross is speaking volumes.
Not sure why ‘ private education ‘ ranks with prostitution as a dislike. The private education I received was very poor. The main effect on me socially was to develop a community spirit because there were no adults present who remotely cared about the youngsters in their care. intellectually I was able to be myself, which by instinct was to be interested in religion, while my parents were distinctly un-religious. it allowed me to observe at first hand that the professional classes , into which I may have been inserted to mould my character, excelled themselves in their intellectual and moral dishonesty, by their own mouths , and convinced me to be a bookbinder and would-be conservator, which did not involve lying, bullying etc. spying was not even thought of then , even though my alpha male friend revealed that he knew the sexual predilections of everyone in our house. so that must have also been there.
If Emma Barnett became a bossy, right-wing, BBC pooper-scoop, then she did that out of her very own personal agenda. Nobody would like our, or our parents’ indiscretions broadcast in public. That’s a red herring here as it is everywhere. I agree with Craig that over-confident Zionist zealousness is repulsive, but quite often people react against it instinctively, as has been mentioned about Israelis who strongly disagree with their government’s apartheid system. If we get into the parent thing and the private education thing, we are getting close to Islamic State, killing people by rumour and association. I am myself and distinctly different from either my social influences , parental or societal. Judge not lest ye be judged is a key guiding principle to a healthy mental state. If Emma Barnett , of herself, wants to sell her own mental health, she goes to her own grave, presumably not carrying too much of her BBC gold with her.
“Not sure why ‘ private education ‘ ranks with prostitution as a dislike”
I’m not sure where you read that.
Murray did compare the hiding of a fact (money from parents illegal endeavours paid for her private education), to the inclusion of an entirely false one about his own wife.
I think you may have your own issues with private education. On one hand you promote institutionalising children, and shout down those who have issues with it, saying that if they didn’t go to boarding school they just don’t get it. At the same time you are proud to be an exception to norm that such institutions produce.
ps I am deliberately displaying a new avatar in protest at the return of Habbabkuk sock-puppeting the same old hasbara and juvenile attacks against Sharp Ears as before. Nice Tory woad.colour, ( not ). A small protest against the presence of trolls here.
£12k pa for seniors at Manchester School for Girls these days.
She was top of the class in Religious Studies in her A level. Even received a letter from the examiner!
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/a-levels-emmas-flawless-score-1150122
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/emma-barnett-from-the-manchester-high-school-for-girls-celebrates-3-picture-id828761142
Good choppers. Dyed blonde even at that young age. Tut tut.
And the JC claim her and report the interview with Jeremy which was probably a set up.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/emma-barnett-abused-on-social-media-after-corbyn-interview-1.439367
What a piece of work. I didn’t watch it yesterday. I find her oily and insincere.
£12k pa for seniors at Manchester School for Girls these days.
She was top of the class in Religious Studies in her A level. Even received a letter from the examiner!
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/a-levels-emmas-flawless-score-1150122
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/emma-barnett-from-the-manchester-high-school-for-girls-celebrates-3-picture-id828761142
Good choppers. Dyed blonde even at that young age. Tut tut.
And the JC claim her and report the interview with Jeremy which was probably a set up.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/emma-barnett-abused-on-social-media-after-corbyn-interview-1.439367
What a piece of work. I didn’t watch it yesterday. I find her oily and insincere.
Hmm. Do two wrongs makea right? I feel that Barry Gardiner totally deserved being taken apart on Labou r’s flippy floppy Brexit position. He makes Tony Blair seem honest and forthcoming by comparison. But then the segway into the antiiSemitic stuff appeared very laboured and contrived.Bottom line is that some people ARE milking the antiSemitism argument for all they are worth but Gardiner dares not say so other than ‘privately'(sic)
Tony, to be honest, Brexit is not the Labour Party’s issue is it? May and her bunch of cowboys she calls a Government are driving Brexit – well, driving isn’t really the word is it, making a total and utter appalling mess of the whole thing to the extent that we are heading for a highly damaging ‘no deal’ exit with the commensurate loss of jobs, investment and other related issues. This so called Government is in for four years, the deadline for a Brexit deal is OCTOBER 2018 we are nearly in June 2018 and the Cabinet are squabling amongst themselves and a significant cost to the nation. I will reiterate, it is not the Labour Party’s issue to deal with. Why should Barry Gardner even answer questions about it? The people that should be put on the spot is May and her Cabinet but of course, Emma wouldn’t do that would she? Did she ask at any time to any conservative MP/Minister as to why the Tory Party Manifesto was ‘uncosted’? No she didn’t. I have no idea how idiots and bigots like her even get to be broadcasters in the first place – but it does give an insight into the Tory Graph and the Murdoch tabloid press doesn’t it.
Another young lady journo joins in the debate, Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonaut. Guerilla poet. Utopia prepper.
I dont think she was educated in Manchester
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/wikipedia-is-an-establishment-psyop-c352c0d2faf
Craig,
Whilst you have some valid points, you apparently didn’t read to the bottom of the Talk page, and I feel that you may be getting a little obsessive on this particular point. I think that intelligent people have always understood that whilst Wikipedia can be quite a useful source for some things (for example, medical or pharmaceutical information), its content related to people, politics and so on has to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
“But Philip Cross makes sure you can see none of that on Wikipedia.”
Well, no. In the Talk page he specifically points to the paragraph in the “Journalist & Broadcaster” section of the article which says:
“In August 2016, Barnett’s ‘Tough Love’ agony column began in The Sunday Times Magazine. To encourage her readers to write in about difficult issues, she referred to “the most painful chapter of my life” when, almost a decade earlier, her father was imprisoned for living off immoral earnings.[16]”
I think that in this case the issue is one of prominence rather than denial.
And brothel-keeper is, in my mind, a type of businessman.
and the Talk pages are where most people get their info from, right?
You misunderstood – the text I quoted is in the main article. Mr Cross’s justification was in the Talk page.
I’m in two minds about how much of her parents’ convictions should be part of the article. Nevertheless, a “personal life” section tends to be added for many public figures, so perhaps the most open solution is to add it in, as neutrally as possible, and give the intelligent reader an opportunity not to damn a person for their parents’ misdemeanours.
It’s worth noting though that most people do not read the talk pages, nor the edit history, and if they are missing useful information as a result, that is not their fault. If information is worth knowing then it should be in the main article.
Again, to be clear, the information that “her father was imprisoned for living off immoral earnings” is in the main article.
It is becoming apparent that many comments here are written out of ignorance.
(BTW I am no supporter of Philip Cross, and I am a subscriber/patron (whatever the word is) of Craig’s page), but I am a believer in accuracy.)
The Wikipedia page on John le Carre goes into detail about his father’s misdeeds.
Lysias, yes it does but that’s because John Le Carre, if you watch interviews with him and read his latest book, is quite open about it so there is nothing to censor. His books are often highly critical of our Government and the security services and of the USA. They cannot be censored by Phillip Cross
Hi Paul, I might be grasping the wrong end of the stick so to speak, but my reading of the article is that the privileges of a private education, wealth etc have come from her parents living off the exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people for which they were jailed. For me, the point appears to be that, rather than making a clear acknowledgement of the vulnerable people who were exploited by her parents for financial gain (and it appears to be that many of these people were possibly ‘trafficked’ by her parents into the UK for this purpose if rumours are at least to be believed) and making a political commitment to end this abuse of vulnerable people by actively condemning the practice and taking steps to help end it, she has gone on to promote, through her columns and broadcasts, the abuse of vulnerable and the poor by swingeing benefit cuts, negative media profiles etc and to promote this totalitarian Government’s objectives in the further subjugation of the poor and the vulnerable.
That may well be true, but the Wiki article acknowledges the situation with her parents. You seem to be suggesting that they are blamed entirely for the way she has turned out? The question, I guess, is how much blame to apportion to each party. I don’t think there’s a right answer to that. Wiki mentions the parental influence. Beyond that it’s up to the reader to make their own judgement.
I write, by the way, ads someone living far from UK TV, so I am commenting on the basis of what I read here and on other websites.
Radar O’Reilly
Rogue journalist. Bogan socialist. Anarcho-psychonaut. Guerilla poet. Utopia prepper.
A very refreshing nice article. Not so keen on the masked figure demanding I sign into the site with Google.
More sides than a Skripal. And he survived Thatcherchok. It must be a good idea keep all sides happy. We don’s actually know which side is going to win this info war. Well we do , even though we are supposed to pretend that a vast cyber transformation is sweeping across the globe.
I am long enough in the tooth to remember how the Tories came into power under Thatcher. They said they were new, revolutionary and they were going to sweep out the old Tory order. Then they reverted to worse repulsive than the old school they kicked out.
Cyber stuff is total blather. I keep all my socks in chronological order and I hearken unto tripe with a truly listening ear. All the time. Off is the default position for my Radio 4
I think an early edit (15 Feb 2005) reveals Philip Cross IP Address, if it does (back then) it was an AOL account with a geo location centred in Westminster
172.202.56.12
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhilip_Cross&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=11168940&oldid=11168820
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhilip_Cross&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=11168940&oldid=11168820
Nice catch.
@ Charles May 21, 2018 at 11:04
The map of the IP address shows it slap dab in the middle of the Thames, just downriver from Lambeth Bridge.
MI5 is just upriver…coincidence? http://iplocation.truevue.org/172.202.56.12.html
MI5 Thames House, Millbank: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Millbank,+Westminster,+London+SW1P+4RP/@51.4934731,-0.1252467,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x487604e83c5fcad3:0x73419212d3c5843c!8m2!3d51.4926782!4d-0.1252467
IP addresses (can) mean bugger all – I change mine every week. At present, I am “located” in Wales (https://www.whatismyip.com/ip-address-lookup/), but I actually live in Scotland.
The 172.202.56.12 IP address comes up with 2 locations in different countries: Dulles, Virginia, USA and ‘GB’ (no specific location). A ‘Whos IP’ search (https://www.whois.com/whois/172.202.56.12) reveals that the Dulles location is the primary one.
For what it’s worth.
quote:
Can WHOIS Be Used for Geolocation?
The WHOIS database was not designed to locate IP addresses geographically. WHOIS tracks the owner of an IP address range (subnet or block) and the owner’s postal address. However, these networks may be deployed in a different location than that of the owning entity. In the case of addresses owned by corporations, addresses also tend to be distributed across multiple different branch offices. While the WHOIS system works well for finding and contacting owners of Web sites, it is a highly inaccurate IP location system.
unquote
emphasis mine — bj
source: https://www.lifewire.com/does-ip-address-geolocation-really-work-818154
172.212.56.12 is right there, in the Thames region as mentioned.
I should have been clearer.
A WhoisIP search brings up the geographical location of the Internet provider, in my case EE in Aberdeen and in this case AOL in Dulles, Virginia.
An IP address search is the one that is not reliable, location wise. 172.212.56.12 came up as blank (i.e. unused but in the UK) on the WhatIsMyIP (https://www.whatismyip.com/) site, but others have it in central London. However, since different search sites give different locations for the same IP address (try it!), the use in this case was 13 years ago and it is a dynamic address, that means bugger all.
And now I’m “in” Sutton in Ashfield!
I am just getting tired of these set-up political interviews where the journalists are just trying to pick holes in the stated positions of the parties. The politicians can’t win because if they commit themselves too much to one argument, they get crucified. On the other hand, if they just waffle it looks like they are being evasive and shifty. At the end of the day, these are immensely complicated questions and they may not fit into 5 second soundbites.
As for Emma Barnett, her glamorous looks do not conceal her right-wing agenda (or for that matter the BBC). This agenda is designed to create divisions in the Labour Party and not to solve the huge issues that Brexit has created. I don’t know about her background (although am a bit reluctant to blame her for her parent’s vices). All I know is I can’t stand watching the BBC and rarely bother to look at it for more than a few minutes.
A Traub, I agree with you about these set up political interviews. Interestingly enough, I think the public can see them for what they are now – given conversations I have at work and in my local. It seems more and more people are turning to the Internet for sources of information. When Jeremy Corbyn was asked about the cost of the childcare programme, my response would have been decisive inasmuch as it would be, well, I don’t carry costings around with me as a matter of course because, as Leader of the Opposition, I have many committments on my time and this type of complex information is not something I carry around with me at all times – in the same way that neither does the Prime Minister or any of her cabinet. However, I will obtain the information you request and provide it to you after the programme. Simples. It is at least more honest than both Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnstone scuttling out of the House of Commons in a hurry in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions. The scandalous thing about this is that the Speaker allowed it and neither Hunt or Bojo were sanctioned as it is gross misconduct in employment terms.
special needs, special needs, special needs. Just keep rolling around.
I think that you are being a little unfair to Emma.
Here’s is a story of rags to riches, built on the obvious merits of the entrepreneurship of her parents that would not have been achievable in a society that did not embrace unbridled capitalism.
entrepreneurship > people trafficking
Giving Goose, thank you for this dose of sarcasm. Unfair to Emma? Hell, she deserves every criticism levelled at her – she is a disgrace to journalism and to broadcasting.
At this point, one has to wonder what Wales is doing. Is he deliberately destroying ‘wiki’ as an idea? If not, he’s doing a fine imitation of it. What could could possibly persuade him to continue along this course?
I didn’t catch the whole show so I missed the Barry Gardiner interview (I turned over when they started discussing the bloody Royal Wedding), but to be fair to her, she did make Matt Hancock look a bit of a prat. Something Marr would never do to a Tory.
I thought she made Hancock look a bit stupid and showed the hypocrisy of his own arguments. When she said “are you going to fine Twitter and Facebook £1billion”, Matt was squirming in his chair.
I refuse to listen, view or read anything in which Emma Barnett is involved for the reasons that you describe without having known anything about her background. I am amazed that she is considered a star performer, which says more about what the BBC and the other platforms on which she works are looking for in their journalists. “Phillip Cross” clearly looks after his own kind.
Crispa, I can feel a fine comedy sketch coming on – when I’ve written it I’ll post it here!! Any ideas about the title – Cross’s Barnett’s Bad hairdo Day or something equally as absurd!!
Jon
Presumably the distress she experienced was on account of her father being publicly found out and sentenced for a criminal offence, not because she was unaware of her parents occupation.
She really didn’t have choice of pitch for her broadcasting career. She could not have been a militant feminist without rebelling against her parental values or her broader background values of Israeli army culture.
Just at this precise moment in time there is a job spot for Emma Barnett at the BBC. Could we have her interviewing Theresa May about why she vicariously kicked out her colleague Damian Green and her last Defence Minister? When the fudge hits the fan… it’s Ramadhan…not going into it any further.
Well said.
Ive never been one to use wikipedia. It didnt sit right with me. The fact anyone can edit information leaves it wide open to abuse.
That’s not the problem. We, the general public, aren’t our own enemy. The problem is the editorial bias that gives Philip Cross-type editing undue weight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight
I started the day looking online for the best price of garden compost. Found enough on here for all the marrows, peppers and tomatoes I need. Thanks Craig.
It seems (according to the Manchester Evening News) that the lovely Emma knew all about her dad’s “business”: “Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his `whores’.” (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/school-aide-laundered-brothel-cash-946427)
Julian Wells, Very interesting Mr Bond…..!
I think Ms Barnett was indeed aware of her fathers illicit income and how it financed her advantageous education (at the expense of trafficked women)….the Manchester Evening News clearly documents this as part of the evidence used to convict her parents -> that I think implies complicity on her behalf – certainly awareness (“Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his `whores’.”)
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/school-aide-laundered-brothel-cash-946427
This just reinforces the total moral bankruptcy of the right wing kleptocratic neoliberal dogma that pervades the Main Stream Media in GB, and the fact there is a small industry devoted to ensuring that censorship and protection of the champions of this agenda are not called to account
Keep up the good work Craig.
The e-mails were denials as acknowledged by Craig a year ago.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/the-sins-of-the-father/comment-page-1/
I must advise you Mr Zmurray that an expensive private education does not necessarily provide much more than a social network of the Upper Middle Class. I know this from personal experience…
Firstly in music: I was learning violin and piano as a kid, not brilliantly but such that it was good PR for my father and the borough to send me to RAM Saturday mornings. This turned me overnight into a social pariah as 10 yr old lower middle class boys play football and poofs play the violin. My piano lessons went from 30 minutes with a teacher of 30 years standing to 20 minutes with an undergradate student. Fees trebled. Ho hum…
At thirteen I was kicked out for family reasons from home to go to boarding school. End RAM, still a challenge to play sport Saturdays. Boarding school was a non-selective 2 form entry comprehensive with 5-10% going to Oxbridge (I was one) and 10-20% struggling to get 5 O Levels. Fees went from £636 to £1500 per term over five years during high inflation. Sports facilities were superior, individual teachers were very good, academic standards were very lax. Colney Creche in the 1970s/80s if you understand the football analogy….
At 17, I went abroad on a gap year to a Sports and Languages academy in Austria, the school being funded by the Austrian State; and studied violin at Salzburg’s Mozarteum Conservatory. Fees for both were 10-20% of fees for UK equivalents. Standards were comparable (school) or immeasurably higher (conservatory). Quite ignoring the fact I became bilingual and read more classic German literature than many first year languages undergraduates, I learned more in one year there than five years of expensive dross in the UK.
I am sure some private schools like St Pauls are academically superior. Eton is a social network…..
And many private schools have had sexual abuse scandals going back decades…..
Not all unfair advancement, public school education…
@ Rhys Jaggar May 21, 2018 at 12:01
Would you be interested in translating ‘Gekaufte Journalisten’ by Udo Ulfkotte; the German was a best seller, but the US company that bought the rights to print an English translation then ‘privished’ it and sat on it (doubtless at the behest of the CIA). The rights have now been taken back, and a printer is negotiating the rights.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/any-german-english-speakers-here/
Jimmy Wales, occasional editors such as myself are watching you…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clark42
” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clark42 ”
Ah ha! Also born in 1963!
(good to see you contributing here)
Hello Neil, aka Wikipedia editor NSH001. I remember that in 2012 you and Demiurge1000 helped me over Usmanov sanitising his Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clark42
…which all blew up rather spectacularly a few months later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisher_Usmanov#Suppression_of_online_criticism
I commend your user page to readers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NSH001
Fortunately I have no idea who any of these people are, and only have a vague understanding of Wikipedia. However looking up the Wikipedia entry for Emma Barnett I read the following
“Emma Barnett was born to Ian and Michelle Barnett. Ian was a local businessman who worked in commercial property. He was convicted and sent tomorrow for using these” commercial!properties ” as brothels. Her mother was a housewife.[1] She was convicted and given a suspended prison sentence for receiving her husband’s ‘ immoral earnings’. This information keeps being deleted on Wikipedia by an “editor” who goes under the name Philip Cross and who ” curates” a number of accounts of people who are politically right wing.”
So, in some form of broken English it is possible to read all about brothels and convictions and Philip Cross – not a particularly succesful operation being run by Wikipedia in this instance.
Maybe Philip Cross has a problem with people who demonstrate an appalling grasp of the English language. At least we can be confident that this particular paragraph was unlikely to have been composed by someone benefiting from an expensive private school education.
Probably because the page has been edited six times already today.
Am I to understand that the more something is edited then the more incoherent the language becomes? Based on a common understanding of “edit” or “editor” this would appear to be the opposite outcome to the expected outcome.
Yes, it’s being edited while we speak, so to speak. Philip, take a beak!
s/beak/break/
This in an account of THE wedding reception in the Mirror sickened me. The Mirror is more of a rag than the Heil if that is possible.
Note that the names of the missiles we ourselves rain down on brown skinned people and which we sell to dictatorships for the same purpose can be treated as something witty in the ‘royal’ eyes. Yet the late mother of the two nitwits campaigned against land mines.
‘In honour of Harry’s time in the forces, the evening was lubricated by cocktails with military names such as the Apache, the Brimstone, the Rapier and the Hellfire.’
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-both-12569421
Were the brown skinned people lubricated? More like liquidized and incinerated.
Ooops! That is obviously a serious oversight by someone.
reply to Charles above, May 21 2018 11:04 ^^ (IP address)
the coordinates to that IP address give the location as on the Lambeth Palace Road opposite the Houses of Parliament, to pinpoint exactly it’s on the pavement on the east side of Lambeth Palace Road in between the DLD College and Bouygues UK buildings.
(51 degrees 30 minutes North, 7 minutes 0.001 seconds West)
The heading on the Emma Barnett Wikipedia page.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This biographical article is written like a résumé. (June 2017)
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (June 2017)
Question book-new.svg
This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2017)
Six edits today. None by the eponymous Cross.
These lines were inserted and then removed by someone in Australia called Melcous’!
‘ He was convicted and sent tomorrow for using these” commercial!properties ” as brothels.’
‘She was convicted and given a suspended prison sentence for receiving her husband’s ‘ immoral earnings’. This information keeps being deleted on Wikipedia by an “editor” who goes under the name Philip Cross and who ” curates” a number of accounts of people who are politically right wing.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Barnett&diff=842273764&oldid=842269012
The other previous edits are via a Virgin account in Camden Town. IP address 92.232.110.39
Cross et al need to get a proper job or volunteer somewhere to help others and to stop their tomfoolery.
Beware Sharp Ears, no matter how moral you are in 99.99% of your points, posts, and articles, that 0.01% where you dare to joke will have you condemn to hell. I can say that if I were a rabbit, I’d have sex with all my sisters, and therefore there will be those on here who are certain that as a human I am a practicing incest pervert. I mean I am, but that’s beside the point.
I reckon, if you are inciting involuntary euthanasia (murder apparently), then you must first be inciting witchcraft to turn him/her/it into a dog. OMG BURN HER!!