This (now deleted) tweet was sent by Andrew Neil presumably in response to the news that Carole Cadwalladr had just won the Stieg Larsson Prize 2018 for “her courageous and unremitting efforts to reveal operators trying to undermine democratic processes in Britain and the United States. All in the spirit of Stieg Larsson”:
Nothing compared with having to deal with mad cat woman from Simpson’s, Karol Kodswallop.
I’m sure the BBC is aware of Neil’s views.
Later: Ah, yes. Aware of his views enough to send this tweet:
Hello Carole. Andrew has deleted what he recognises was an inappropriate tweet.
and this (which Neil generously retweeted):
There has been some discussion on here regarding a tweet from Andrew Neil about Carole Cadwalladr. He has deleted the tweet and recognises it was inappropriate.
afneil‘s above an apology, of course.
This is a good question:
Not quite sure why the BBC is running interference on neil’s private twitter feed where he regularly publishes Spectator stuff – do they work for him now?
And so is this:
So Andrew Neil joins the Russian Embassy, Arron Banks, Guido Fawkes and Julian Assange in smearing – for her prize winning scoops this year. By doing so he openly aligns himself with the forces trying to repress one of the scandals of the century. But why?
For anyone who needs reminding, this is the Simpsons cat lady. Not perhaps the first image an award winning investigative journalist brings to mind. Unless you’re concerned about what she’s investigating, of course.
Maybe instead of calling them money launderers we should just call them FENCES, as thats what they do.
If you can’t clean stolen assets, what can you do with them?
Oh well, it’s us in the middle who will bear the cost.
Oddly using an army view it was always the foot soldier who suffered most, but actually rather like society the ones with highest casualty rates were the NCOs and junior officers (the middle). The generals were out of the firing line deciding strategy, the privates had to be encouraged and the people who did that by leading from the front were the “middle ” who ended up paying the price.
It’s a bit like the hollowed out middle class. In the US I assume its on the basis that if you like, the Generals give direct instructions to the privates, whilst here, the privates or the ones at the bottom do have safety nets, the generals don’t need those nets, and its the middle that supports both?
No doubt the analogy breaks down but the more I think of it, it’s the middle thats at risk. The countries that seem to do best in all metrics are the ones with the biggest middle class.
Where are they most at risk at the moment, US and UK?
What we have is the generals using the privates to wage war against their own NCOs and junior officers, the Middle ?
Last night, an expert on ‘ finances was introduced on as”Remain supporter” Iain Campbell. News to me. I know him as a forensic accountant. I am curious . Is this a new policy? In which case, can we now look forward to “Leave supporter Andrew Neil”?
BBC Newsnight on 8 November 2016. 04:49 in, “We asked accountant Iain Campbell, who’s a remainer, what he thought”.
Mr Raab told a technology conference on Wednesday: “We want a bespoke arrangement in goods which recognises the peculiar, frankly, geographic, economic entity that is the United Kingdom.
“We are, and I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.
“And that’s one of the reasons why, and there’s been a lot of controversy about this, but one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure that we have a very specific and very proximate relationship with the EU to ensure frictionless trade at the border, particularly for just-in-time manufacturing goods whether it’s pharmaceutical goods or perishable goods like food.”
My emphasis. Raab is Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. He’s also the man too lazy to read the Government’s own economic assessments. But you’d have thought he’d have picked up some basic geography at Oxford etc.
Fox News, NBC and Facebook have pulled a Donald Trump campaign advert that has been widely condemned as racist.
The 30 second anti-immigration advert, paid for by the Donald Trump for President campaign, was tweeted out by the president last week and aired during an NFL game on NBC on Sunday night and on Fox News.
“Upon further review, Fox News pulled the ad yesterday and it will not appear on either Fox News Channel or Fox Business Network,” Marianne Gambelli, Fox News’s president of advertisement sales, told CNN on Monday.
The advert features ominous-sounding music as a voice warns urgently about “the 7,000-migrant caravan” that it said was “marching toward our border”.
It adds: “Dangerous illegal criminals like cop-killer Luis Bracamontes don’t care about our laws”, before urging people to “vote Republican”. It ends with Donald Trump saying: “I approve this message.”
A sitting US president has a racist ad banned by Fox. I’ll just leave that to sink in.
Posts such as Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy and The Right Finds the Perfect Weapon Against the Left got me thinking about the doubled edge sword of political correctness. A well-intentioned campaign by, as it happened, a very precise segment of educated white people sought to use language to change behaviour. It has been an interesting test case of Orwell’s thesis about language use – in 1984 removing words was meant to stop people thinking certain things – but why has it upset so many people? My theory is that many, many people want to do the right thing. They’re basically reasonable. But political correctness is always evolving, not documented and certainly wasn’t taught in schools. So it brings real stress – how do you avoid offending people? That, I think, is the fear that many people feel and that’s why they lash out at the concept of political correctness.
The BBC has been criticised for booking Arron Banks, the pro-Brexit billionaire who is the subject of a criminal investigation, to appear on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday.
Banks is being investigated by the National Crime Agency (NCA) after his case was referred to it by the Electoral Commission, which said there were reasonable grounds to suspect Banks was “not the true source” of £8m given to the Leave.EU campaign.
The BBC’s decision provoked widespread condemnation from politicians, lawyers and activists.
Andrew Adonis, a leading remain campaigner, said in a letter to the BBC that Banks’s expected appearance was the result of “a very serious editorial misjudgment, influenced by a culture of accommodation to extreme Brexiteers now deeply embedded within the BBC”.
“A man under criminal investigation would like to come on and do some spin” “Book him” “Why?” “Literally haven’t got a single fucking justification for this one, just do me a favour and book the possibly criminal prick”
Of course, Marr has form – remember the absurd pairing of Isabel Oakeshott and Carole Cadwalladr? Cadwalladr has done serious investigative journalism on foreign influence in Brexit …and Oakeshott hasn’t. And then there’s Oakshott’s puzzling behaviour described in Cadwalladr’s tweet:
Flashback! Watching ? Remember when they invited on to attack my investigation? Turns out she KNEW then about ‘ Russian connections. Had known for MONTHS…