Race & Crime UK
79.6K views | +13 today
Race & Crime UK
In association with Nationalist Media Network - Home Page http://britishnationalistreview.tumblr.com
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Nationalist Media Network

Daily Telegraph exposes the rancid left wing filth and scum of common purpose

Daily Telegraph exposes the rancid left wing filth and scum of common purpose | Race & Crime UK | Scoop.it
Sir David Bell, a senior adviser to the Leveson Inquiry, is facing questions about potential conflicts of interest over his links to a lobby group demanding press reform.


Sir David is a co-founder of the Media Standards Trust, the group behind the Hacked Off campaign which has been fronted by the actors Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan.
He is also a trustee and former chairman of Common Purpose, a charity which runs leadership courses and encourages networking among its graduates, including the Scotland Yard commissioner Cressida Dick, who appointed Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers to head the phone-hacking investigation.
Earlier this week, Sir David’s name was linked to the notorious Newsnight report which led to the smearing of Lord McAlpine, as he is a trustee of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the not-for-profit group behind the Newsnight film.
The BIJ gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in which it proposed a levy on media organisations to fund groups like itself, which, it boasted, produced a “gold standard” in journalism.
The BIJ is now being sued by Lord McAlpine and its future is in doubt after it failed to carry out basic checks on its report for Newsnight.

Sir David’s links to organisations whose members gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry were examined by The Daily Mail, which said they raised questions about the “impact this may have had on the objectivity and neutrality of the inquiry itself”.
There is no suggestion that Lord Justice Leveson has any links to any of the organisations or that he has been anything other than impartial.
In 2006 Sir David, the former chairman of the Financial Times, and his friend Julia Middleton founded the Media Standards Trust, a charity which campaigns for “quality, transparency and accountability in news”.
It spawned Hacked Off, the lobby group leading the campaign against phone-hacking, which successfully argued for a widening of the remit of the Leveson Inquiry to include the conduct of politicians, the police and mobile phone companies.
Hacked Off also successfully lobbied for the Leveson Inquiry to investigate failures of Data Protection laws.
Ironically, in 2009 the Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Common Purpose, formerly chaired by Sir David and founded by Miss Middleton, was “unlikely to have complied with provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998 on processing data”.
It had circulated a list of 18 people to public bodies around the country warning that the people named should be treated as “vexatious” because they had lodged Freedom of Information Act requests about Common Purpose’s activities, in particular the amount government departments were spending on its courses.
Because the list circulated by Common Purpose could “contain their name, and if known, also their address and/or phone number”, Common Purpose had “probably breached” the Data Protection Act, the ICO said.
Common Purpose clients include Government departments, which spent more than £1 million sending people on its courses over a few years, the BBC, which spent £126,000 over five years, and police forces.
Two other Leveson assessors, the former Ofcom chairman Lord Currie and the former West Midlands Police chief constable Sir Paul Scott-Lee, have indirect links to Common Purpose.
During Lord Currie’s time at Ofcom, the regulator sent staff on Common Purpose courses. Two of the people who served on the board of directors with him have also been involved with either Hacked Off or the Media Standards Trust.
West Midlands Police sent 27 officers on Common Purpose courses under Sir Paul’s leadership.
Common Purpose says its courses give participants “the inspiration, knowledge and connections to help them become more active and engaged in society”.
Critics have described it as a “modern version of the freemasons’ handshake” and “the Left’s version of the old boys’ network”.
Philip Davies MP, a member of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, said Sir David’s connections “raise questions about his suitability to be on the [Leveson] panel and whether he can be relied upon to give an objective analysis and recommendations”.
Lord Justice Leveson is due to publish his report into media standards at the end of this month or early next month.
A spokesman for the Leveson Inquiry said all six assessors had been asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest before they were appointed and discussed their answers with Lord Justice Leveson.
“He was satisfied that there was nothing in their disclosures which caused him concern or justified any of them not taking up their role,” the spokesman added.
Sir David was unavailable for comment.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Nationalist Media Network

What's with the Left's conspiracy of silence over the ANC's brutal massacre of miners in Marikana?

What's with the Left's conspiracy of silence over the ANC's brutal massacre of miners in Marikana? | Race & Crime UK | Scoop.it
Try to imagine the global outrage there would be if the police in Russia or China shot and killed 34 protesting workers.


Try to imagine the global outrage there would be if the police in Russia or China shot and killed 34 protesting workers. And just think what follow-up fury there would be if those Russian or Chinese police then arrested and charged the workers lucky enough to survive the massacre with the "murder" of their fallen colleagues. World leaders would hold press conferences so that they could be photographed solemnly shaking their heads and wringing their hands over those nasty, brutal coppers Over There. Amnesty International would have to hire extra part-time staff just to have enough people to stand sad-faced outside every Tube station in London while wearing t-shirts saying "Protect the Human" and pressing anti-Chinese or anti-Russian leaflets into commuters' hands. Twitter would go mental.
And yet when those very things happened in South Africa – first the massacre of 34 miners in Marikana on 16 August and then the arrest of the surviving miners under a warped Orwellian law of the apartheid era that allows protesters to be charged with murder if the state kills some of their fellow protesters – the global gatekeepers of the human-rights culture said barely a peep. Amnesty issued a feeble statement, hidden deep on its website, about the need for the ANC government to institute a judge-led inquiry into the killings. And then it went straight back to organising global protests to have Pussy Riot released from their Russian jail. For Amnesty, three pretty white chicks are clearly way more important than 34 dead black blokes. Britain’s liberal broadsheets, which pride themselves on speaking truth to power, have published no thundering editorials about the massacre, no stinging critiques of the ANC. World leaders are also keeping schtum.
Of course, the West’s self-styled defenders of human rights are infamous for their double standards. They are always far more agitated by Chinese police brutality than by any other nation’s police brutality, for example, because they think the Chinese are especially evil. They always describe wars fought in Africa – whisper it: by black people – as “genocides”, whereas the wars fought by Washington or London are always just “wars”. And they lose far more sleep over Russia’s imprisonment of Pussy Riot for two years on trumped-up charges of blasphemy than they do over Britain’s imprisonment of a tweeter for two months, or our imprisonment for four years of two blokes who wrote nonsense about rioting on their Facebook pages, because they think Eastern rulers are, unlike us, naturally mafia-esque and inherently authoritarian. So it isn’t a massive shock to find them downplaying one major massacre in favour of focusing on other, less pressing human-rights problems.
But there is more to the conspiracy of silence over the Marikana massacre than double standards. More fundamentally, the reason there is so little fuss about this act of state terror is because Western leaders and their mates in the human-rights lobby have for years been telling us that the New South Africa, this post-apartheid “Rainbow Nation”, is a living, breathing testament to the values of truth and reconciliation over political conflict and to the elevation of respect for cultural diversity and human rights to the top of the political agenda. And this massacre shoots that myth down. It calls into question, in the most dramatic fashion imaginable, the idea that the New South Africa is a paragon of virtue and an advert for making “human rights” the lingua franca of political life, as the ANC has done. What this massacre reveals is that, in truth, there are deep, seriously unresolved divisions in South Africa, continuing and profound inequality, and rising disgruntlement among black workers with their black rulers. None of that reality is palatable to politicians or commentators over here, who for years have been behaving as if every problem in South Africa was fixed by the reforms that followed the unbanning of the ANC and the institutionalisation of a new kind of PC politics, and so they just ignore it – they ignore the massacre and they ignore the divisions that nurtured it.
Anti-apartheid activists used to argue that those Western leaders who refused to condemn the apartheid regime were cynically putting their own interests, usually their business interests in South Africa, above the lives and liberties of black South Africans. By the same token, the human-rights lobby that has said barely a word about the Marikana massacre is now promoting its own interests, its investment of so much overblown hope and hype in the New South Africa, above the lives and liberties of the black workers who live there.

By Brendan O'Neill


No comment yet.