about the effect of last night's vote on Cameron or Miliband. But Assad now sees himself as invincible. Happy now? Enough dead children for you yet? We have to rely on Barry O to save the people of Syria. Doomed.
For some light relief, in a gallows-humour kind of way, here is the vile Galloway doing what he does best:
http://youtu.be/yVI97C64Yks
Showing posts with label liar watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liar watch. Show all posts
Friday, 30 August 2013
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
Israel-Palestine untruths
I do read the Daily Telegraph quite often on line, for its international affairs coverage. However, its Middle East correspondent, Robert Tait, who ought to know what he is talking about, wrote this:
the fate of almost five million Arab refugees expelled to neighbouring countries during Israel’s 1948 war of independence,
which is a complete untruth. About 711,000 Arab people became refugees following 1948, which is less than the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries between 1948 and 1970 (about 850,000). Not all of those who became refugees were "expelled" from anywhere.
Lies and the lying liars, hein? But let's be kind and say that Mr Tait just didn't know, and got it wrong, and now that it has been pointed out he, and the Telegraph, will - oh, never mind.
the fate of almost five million Arab refugees expelled to neighbouring countries during Israel’s 1948 war of independence,
which is a complete untruth. About 711,000 Arab people became refugees following 1948, which is less than the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries between 1948 and 1970 (about 850,000). Not all of those who became refugees were "expelled" from anywhere.
Lies and the lying liars, hein? But let's be kind and say that Mr Tait just didn't know, and got it wrong, and now that it has been pointed out he, and the Telegraph, will - oh, never mind.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
something missing here, surely
the full list of charges following Operation Weeting on phone hacking is handily produced for us by Guido. But something is missing. The individuals or groups of individuals whose phones were allegedly hacked are listed, but Mr Salter's name is not there! And he identified himself as a target just a few short weeks ago, as we read in the Reading Chronicle (so it must be true)! What can have gone wrong? There must be a separate operation going on just in respect of the hacking of Salter's phone, don't you think? Which will report in due course and will result in serious criminal charges. Bound to happen. Do I detect a note of scepticism in your resonse, dear reader? Careful now. Because if you are right, and there is no police operation going on in respect of the alleged hacking of Salter's phone, then Salter was either lying or deluded when he said he had been a target of News International, and that of course cannot be the case. Can it? And the Chronicle published a story which was a lie, and if they did not know then that it was a lie they do now. So they'll publish a retraction, won't they? Won't they? *sound of tumbleweed*
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Leveson and Watson
Last month I wrote to Tom Watson MP, following the publication of a "story" in the Reading Chronicle which made me aware that he had submitted evidence to the Leveson Inquiry which referred to me by name, and which was untrue. I sent the letter by registered mail. I have not received a reply. The text is below:
Tom Watson MP
House of Commons
London W1A 0AA
Dear Tom Watson
Leveson Inquiry
I refer to the evidence uploaded to the Leveson Inquiry website on 22 May 2012, and specifically to the part of that evidence submitted to you by Martin Salter and which referred to me by name (see below).
"After a turbulent relationship with her local party my neighbouring MP Jane Griffiths was eventually deselected on 22nd February 2004. The following Sunday she gave an angry interview to the Mail on Sunday and tried to smear me and others in a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations. My solicitors Bindmans managed to have my name removed..."
I have written to the Inquiry (copy enclosed) formally requesting that this part of that evidence be removed from the transcript of the Inquiry, for the reasons that it is both untrue in its reference to myself and irrelevant to the Inquiry. Its irrelevance is in fact confirmed by its author, Martin Salter, in a comment he submitted to a story about the giving of that evidence published in the Reading Chronicle (copy enclosed). In fact it was on having my attention drawn to the Reading Chronicle story that I first became aware of the existence of this evidence submitted to the Inquiry by yourself.
I am formally requesting you to remove the part of the materials submitted to you by Martin Salter which refer to me from your evidence to the Inquiry. I hope you will agree to do this, so that I need not consider any further action.
At no time was I approached by any of the parties or informed that my name was going to be submitted in evidence to the Inquiry. This appears to me to be at the very least discourteous, if not actually in bad faith, the more so as we are former colleagues in the House, but the usual courtesies should surely apply to everyone if they are to be meaningful.
Finally, the Reading Chronicle story quotes Martin Salter as saying that you had approached former MPs for evidence of phone hacking or any other criminal or wrongful behaviour on the part of News International employees. I was not so approached, nor were a number of other former MPs with whom I am in touch. I should be grateful for the names of those you approached, as I think we could have a useful conversation on certain matters. If the names are not to be supplied, an indication of how many former MPs you approached would also be helpful.
I can be contacted as above, and look forward to hearing from you.
Jane Griffiths
At the time of writing this post that evidence submitted by Tom Watson MP has not been withdrawn, and I have received no communication from him. I have now made my own submission to the inquiry, which had not originally been my intention. It is factual.
I now have to consider my position and any future action.
Tom Watson MP
House of Commons
London W1A 0AA
Dear Tom Watson
Leveson Inquiry
I refer to the evidence uploaded to the Leveson Inquiry website on 22 May 2012, and specifically to the part of that evidence submitted to you by Martin Salter and which referred to me by name (see below).
"After a turbulent relationship with her local party my neighbouring MP Jane Griffiths was eventually deselected on 22nd February 2004. The following Sunday she gave an angry interview to the Mail on Sunday and tried to smear me and others in a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations. My solicitors Bindmans managed to have my name removed..."
I have written to the Inquiry (copy enclosed) formally requesting that this part of that evidence be removed from the transcript of the Inquiry, for the reasons that it is both untrue in its reference to myself and irrelevant to the Inquiry. Its irrelevance is in fact confirmed by its author, Martin Salter, in a comment he submitted to a story about the giving of that evidence published in the Reading Chronicle (copy enclosed). In fact it was on having my attention drawn to the Reading Chronicle story that I first became aware of the existence of this evidence submitted to the Inquiry by yourself.
I am formally requesting you to remove the part of the materials submitted to you by Martin Salter which refer to me from your evidence to the Inquiry. I hope you will agree to do this, so that I need not consider any further action.
At no time was I approached by any of the parties or informed that my name was going to be submitted in evidence to the Inquiry. This appears to me to be at the very least discourteous, if not actually in bad faith, the more so as we are former colleagues in the House, but the usual courtesies should surely apply to everyone if they are to be meaningful.
Finally, the Reading Chronicle story quotes Martin Salter as saying that you had approached former MPs for evidence of phone hacking or any other criminal or wrongful behaviour on the part of News International employees. I was not so approached, nor were a number of other former MPs with whom I am in touch. I should be grateful for the names of those you approached, as I think we could have a useful conversation on certain matters. If the names are not to be supplied, an indication of how many former MPs you approached would also be helpful.
I can be contacted as above, and look forward to hearing from you.
Jane Griffiths
At the time of writing this post that evidence submitted by Tom Watson MP has not been withdrawn, and I have received no communication from him. I have now made my own submission to the inquiry, which had not originally been my intention. It is factual.
I now have to consider my position and any future action.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
my response to the lies
The Reading Chronicle published this yesterday, so here is my response to it. I have also put it in the comments box on the story, and they have said they will publish a shortened version in the dead-tree remix.
I read with interest your copy of a press release from a Mr Martin Salter titled "Ex-Reading MP tells Leveson he was a News of the World target". Apparently Mr Salter is upset that the now defunct News of the World ran an "unpleasant" story about him refusing to back its Sarah's Law campaign in 2000. Poor love. Journalists not always being nice about people in public life? That must have come as a terrible shock to the notoriously publicity-shy and reclusive MP. Understandably still traumatised 12 years later by the dreadful discovery that there are parts of the print media which are sometimes unwilling to copy out his press releases, Mr Salter has attempted to heal those wounds by providing his tale of woe as evidence for Tom Watson MP to present to the Leveson inquiry. What Tom Watson was thinking when he agreed to accept this stuff is another matter. But I have read Tom Watson's ghostwritten book "Dial M for Murdoch", which is not only crammed with inaccuracies but reveals that Tom Watson at one stage believed himself to be mentally ill. We're with you on that, Tommy-boy! Mr Salter takes up the story. The News of the World went to his home! Shock! Horror! They had a photographer! Anguish! Terror! He was indeed terrified. He had to stay away from home for the Whole Day! In case the Nasty Men came back! I am reliably informed that he spent the day in Reading West, where he knew the press would never find him. They were searching for him, of course, in Reading East. A cunning stunt, I'm sure you will agree.
Anyway, the reason I have taken up my pen is that Mr Salter's press release contained the following:
"In 2004, former Reading East MP Jane Griffiths, (punctuation errors either Mr Salter's or the Reading Chronicle's) attempted to "smear" him with "a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations" in an "angry interview" with the Mail on Sunday after she was deselected by her local Labour party." First, matters of fact. No smear. A smear is an allegation, usually untrue, but anyway intended to make the person it is about look in some way bad or as though they have done something they have not done. Everything I said in relation to Mr Salter was factual. Not only this, but he said so himself at the time, telling MPs and anyone who would listen that he had "coughed to the dope". (No, me neither. I think it's a secret language they speak in Staines.) "Ridiculous" my words may have made Mr Salter seem, but "false" they were not. If they had been, why did he not sue me? He brags about his litigiousness often enough. Also, I was not "angry" during the interview. The journalist and I had a good laugh together. I've let the journalist know about this nonsense, and I have of course contacted both Tom Watson MP and the Leveson inquiry team. Second, why was this nonsense given in evidence to the Leveson inquiry? There is no connection with phone hacking. Except in Mr Salter's dreams. He tells us that on the day in question the Horrid Newspaper Man made 20 calls to him, which he ignored. He also tells us that to this day, eight years on, he is still "trying to figure out" if there had been "an attempt to illegally access his voicemail messages". No evidence for it, Martin. Sorry mate, you're just not interesting enough.
I am grateful to the delightful Sally Stevens of Berkshire Media for allowing me the opportunity to reply to the nonsensical falsehoods peddled by Mr Salter in the pages of the Reading Chronicle. It does the heart good to know that not all newspapers allow lies and smears to go unchallenged
I read with interest your copy of a press release from a Mr Martin Salter titled "Ex-Reading MP tells Leveson he was a News of the World target". Apparently Mr Salter is upset that the now defunct News of the World ran an "unpleasant" story about him refusing to back its Sarah's Law campaign in 2000. Poor love. Journalists not always being nice about people in public life? That must have come as a terrible shock to the notoriously publicity-shy and reclusive MP. Understandably still traumatised 12 years later by the dreadful discovery that there are parts of the print media which are sometimes unwilling to copy out his press releases, Mr Salter has attempted to heal those wounds by providing his tale of woe as evidence for Tom Watson MP to present to the Leveson inquiry. What Tom Watson was thinking when he agreed to accept this stuff is another matter. But I have read Tom Watson's ghostwritten book "Dial M for Murdoch", which is not only crammed with inaccuracies but reveals that Tom Watson at one stage believed himself to be mentally ill. We're with you on that, Tommy-boy! Mr Salter takes up the story. The News of the World went to his home! Shock! Horror! They had a photographer! Anguish! Terror! He was indeed terrified. He had to stay away from home for the Whole Day! In case the Nasty Men came back! I am reliably informed that he spent the day in Reading West, where he knew the press would never find him. They were searching for him, of course, in Reading East. A cunning stunt, I'm sure you will agree.
Anyway, the reason I have taken up my pen is that Mr Salter's press release contained the following:
"In 2004, former Reading East MP Jane Griffiths, (punctuation errors either Mr Salter's or the Reading Chronicle's) attempted to "smear" him with "a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations" in an "angry interview" with the Mail on Sunday after she was deselected by her local Labour party." First, matters of fact. No smear. A smear is an allegation, usually untrue, but anyway intended to make the person it is about look in some way bad or as though they have done something they have not done. Everything I said in relation to Mr Salter was factual. Not only this, but he said so himself at the time, telling MPs and anyone who would listen that he had "coughed to the dope". (No, me neither. I think it's a secret language they speak in Staines.) "Ridiculous" my words may have made Mr Salter seem, but "false" they were not. If they had been, why did he not sue me? He brags about his litigiousness often enough. Also, I was not "angry" during the interview. The journalist and I had a good laugh together. I've let the journalist know about this nonsense, and I have of course contacted both Tom Watson MP and the Leveson inquiry team. Second, why was this nonsense given in evidence to the Leveson inquiry? There is no connection with phone hacking. Except in Mr Salter's dreams. He tells us that on the day in question the Horrid Newspaper Man made 20 calls to him, which he ignored. He also tells us that to this day, eight years on, he is still "trying to figure out" if there had been "an attempt to illegally access his voicemail messages". No evidence for it, Martin. Sorry mate, you're just not interesting enough.
I am grateful to the delightful Sally Stevens of Berkshire Media for allowing me the opportunity to reply to the nonsensical falsehoods peddled by Mr Salter in the pages of the Reading Chronicle. It does the heart good to know that not all newspapers allow lies and smears to go unchallenged
Monday, 27 February 2012
thanks Josie babes
for the plug - free publicity is always good. Comes to something when there is wrangling in the council chamber in Reading over an item on my blog revealing what is widely known in Reading, that Jon Fatboy Hartley was the source of the leak of information about the Labour Group's trashing of the council chief executive for having integrity cost-saving reasons. Thanks for reading, Josie babes, good to know you get your information about Reading from someone who lives 600 km away and has not lived in Reading since 2005. A little suggestion to the Labour Group - focus on Reading and not on Strasbourg if you want to control the council instead of just pretending to as you are at present. Oh and Josie - don't eat quite so many pies, and keep the vino intake down to a couple of bottles a day - there's no speaking to you in the mornings, and it takes half a bottle to kill the hangover enough for you to function, so a respected council officer told me just the other day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)