I have read this book, and I think everyone who is interested in the recent history of the Labour Party will find it rewarding. In particular, it is a valuable resource for tracing the development of the anti-Semitism controversy and allegations over the last 5-6 years. 1/6
The author's position is clear: he is solidly committed to putting the case for Chris Williamson. I should say at once that I have been very critical at times of Mr Williamson's approach, which has seemed a bit blundering. I think Mr Garratt is more forgiving than many. 2/6
But the book is by no means all about Mr Williamson; it takes on almost all the issues around alleged Labour Party anti-Semitism, and gives a valuable view of them which is not often seen outside left and Labour left circles. There is also much material... 3/6
...in the book which I have not seen before. There is a very interesting section on the Gilad Atzmon petition which examines the common misconception that Chris Williamson signed the petition. The suspensions and Mr Williamson's responses are documented in full. 4/6
There is thorough documentation of Jeremy Corbyn's record in opposing anti-Semitism and affirming the rights of Jewish people. In short, although the partisan nature of the book is clear, it is a hugely important historical document from which all can benefit. Please read. 5/6
Mr Garratt (@dayofthemutant) : fasten your seatbelt. You are in for a bumpy ride. But best wishes, and thank you for an important work. :D 6/6
Dr Piers Robinson's @Wikipedia page is being deliberately and viciously targeted by editor "NomdeA", whose interests are startlingly similar to those of "Philip Cross", who is banned from such editing. @PiersRobinson1 1/
"NomdeA" is only active a few times a month or less, most usually to attack someone of whom the Western establishment disapproves. There have been four edits of @PiersRobinson1's page thus far, apparently still going on. 2/
"NomdeA" attempts to insinuate again the unsubstantiated allegation, denied by Dr @PiersRobinson1, that he left Sheffield University due to a furore over his alleged support of conspiracy theories. "NomdeA" has attempted to get this allegation into @Wikipedia before.
So. Whatever anyone may think of him, @MaxBlumenthal has published articles in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. This is indisputable fact.
As these are prestigious journals, his @Wikipedia article, not unnaturally, mentioned them. See here.
This is, apparently, not good enough for @Wikipedia narrative manager "Philip Cross". He doesn't want anyone to know from Wikipedia that nasty anti-Western crank @MaxBlumenthal has in fact written for prestigious mainstream media publications. So he deletes the details.
Wikipedia administration idiot-in-chief User:JzG [Guy] blunders into the Philip Cross BLP discussion with irrelevant and insulting remarks and a heap of blatant prejudice. How this person ever got to be a @Wikipedia admin is a mystery.
"Being attacked by a subject of an article you've already edited doesn't constitute a COI."? Yes, fine. What Philip Cross has done is the exact reverse - gone and edited the @timand2037 and @AbbyMartin articles in a hostile manner *after* their tweets regarding him.
Even Philip Cross supporter NedFausa is disturbed by this behaviour. It is also at present an action for which Philip Cross has not even attempted a defence.
REPOST. Okay. So I had a closer look at this "report", including following the hyperlinks. I'd like the University and others to pay particular attention to this paragraph. @EdinburghUni
There are at least four things wrong with this. Firstly, the words "has also claimed on his blog" include a hyperlink. That link does not, in fact, go to Tim Hayward's blog. @EdinburghUni
That's deceitful, giving the incorrect impression that the link goes to Professor Hayward's own words. Instead, it goes to the notorious Times article of 14 April 2018. @EdinburghUni
I've been looking a little more closely at #PhilipCross's recent antics regarding the @guardian article on Paul Manafort and Julian Assange on @Wikipedia.
I vaguely recall that Mr Cross is highly protective of the Guardian, for some reason. Maybe others can help me on that.
The @wikipedia article Mr Cross is editing on this is that of @ggreenwald, a U.S. writer. However, the Guardian is a British newspaper, reporters are British, and the Embassy involved is in London. It therefore could not be clearer that this is a ban violation from Mr Cross.
To begin with, I will simply present the original paragraph and Mr Cross's edited version, side by side.