The Disgraceful Far Right “Journalist” Stephen Daisley 132


I shall blog about last night’s Panorama shortly. But first I should like to draw attention to STV’s disgraceful Stephen Daisley, who I last mentioned joining in a mainstream media Twitter hatefest against me for revealing that MI5 were targeted on the SNP.

Well Daisley has been at it again, this time with a seriously nasty tweet about the mysterious murder of Hilda Murrell. It was sent to Murdoch shill David Aaronovitch, to whom Daisley tweeted

Yep. “Hilda Murrell. How the State silences dissent one elderly rose grower at a time.”

Whatever you believe about the Murrell murder, it is not something Daisley – a broadcast journalist – should be making jokes about. It is also fascinating that both Daisley’s tweet about me and his tweet about Hilda Murrell were both in defence of the security services and both sent to David Aaronovitch.

Aaronovitch found the Murrell joke so hilarious that he retweeted it at 3am on 25 September. Which is a pity for Daisley, as he apparently woke up, remembered he was a broadcast journalist, and deleted it. At any rate the retweet is on Aaronovitch’s twitter stream but the original not on Daisley’s.

It is however instructive to look at Daisley’s twitter stream. It is amazing to me that a supposed “journalist” working for a broadcaster would be so completely open about their anti-SNP, unionist, anti-Corbyn and far right agenda. Daisley is only very small beer, a stinking, sweating foot-soldier of the forces of reaction. But if you can stand it, the way the unionist establishment interacts and thinks is revealed very clearly from a study of his twitter feed. Messages are exchanged with Aaronovitch of Murdoch, Nick Cohen of the Guardian, with John McTernan of the Blairites and with J K Rowling of the 1%, and a great many others. The SNP and Corbyn are smugly derided by all. These well-paid state supporters live in a cosy Panglossian paradise and have contempt for anyone who is not “in”.

The other thing that comes out of the feed is this peculiar obsession with Israel. Of all the media attacks on Jeremy Corbyn’s “anti-Semitic connections”, Daisley’s attack is the most astonishing. STV should be deeply ashamed to carry this; it breaks every rule of good journalism. It is a bizarre hotch-potch of mostly deliberate lies and misrepresentation, and crucially there has not been a single attempt to contact any of the people named to obtain their side of the story.

To tackle just two of about sixty wild inaccuracies. Daisley accused Raed Saleh of a “blood libel” which Saleh has repeatedly denounced and stated that he has never said, and which a British court found there was no evidence that Saleh has ever said. Nonetheless Daisley regurgitates this Israeli propaganda.

Daisley quotes Paul Flynn as questioning the loyalties of Matthew Gould, appointed as British Ambassador to Israel. But this is gross misrepresentation by Daisley. What Flynn queried was Gould’s avowal that he was a “committed Zionist”, not his ethnicity. Would we appoint an Ambassador to Cuba who declared himself an avowed communist?

Daisley also perniciously omits what Flynn had said at the start of his remarks which sets the entire context, which was that Gould had held eight secret meetings with Liam Fox and Adam Werritty, of which the FCO refuses to disclose the subjects discussed and who else was present. Daisley knows that, and his censorship of that context is inexcusable as it completely distorts what Flynn was saying in order to portray Flynn as an anti-Semite.

The last few paragraphs of this attack on Corbyn beggar belief in their lack of balance. There is no nod whatsoever to the plight of the Palestinians, the illegality of the Israeli settlements he names, or the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The Israeli government itself would not dare publish anything so unsubtle and totally one sided. That STV should do this, in the context of an attack on Jeremy Corbyn, is absolutely incredible.

I know Daisley is a very, very insignificant figure. But the humdrum media enforcers of the establishment are vital to their ability to keep the 99% working for the 1%. That such a hate-filled and crazed right-winger as Daisley should be employed by mainstream broadcast media says a huge amount about the society we live in.

UPDATE HOW THE UNIONIST ESTABLISHMENT WORKS

As if to confirm the thesis outlined below, at 10.57am today, Duncan Hothersall, Labour’s New Media Czar in Scotland, retweeted Stephen Daisley’s approving tweet of an extract from Tory Secretary of State David Mundell’s Tory Conference Speech:

Good Stat: More people voted No in Indyref than have ever voted for any party in any election in Scottish history.

The tweet carried the Conservative Party Conference hashtag, so there is no doubt Red Tory Hothersall knew he was spreading Blue Tory Propaganda. The seamless web of Red and Blue Tories and mainstream media functions as usual. It is delightful to be proved so completely right so quickly:


132 thoughts on “The Disgraceful Far Right “Journalist” Stephen Daisley

1 3 4 5
  • glenn

    JSD: Thanks for your comments above, Fedup too. Not sure what you’re trying to achieve with Jemand, though – what is the actual dispute here about? Clearly, he had a number of posts deleted (and I’m not surprised in the slightest), but what has that got to do with yourself?

    Fedup: Now you come to mention it, there is an attitude of Zionist thuggery about Jemand. Like the Israeli high command, he’ll behave in the most terrible fashion, yet claim to be a victim and scream and shout about discrimination, and that the people he’s abused are actually the aggressor.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Glenn
    10/10/2015 10:16pm

    Perhaps you have not been able to follow the exchanges in detail, Glenn. Briefly, I told him that I did not believe a particular posting existed, and he has now demonstrated that I was wrong. That merits a response.

    Thanks, J

  • glenn

    ok, JSD – that particular post never actually existed if it was in “pre-mod” status. Not on the blog here. It might have been visible to the poster, but not to anyone else. It was never published, so it didn’t actually exist.

  • Jemand ( [*censored* - ask me why] )

    “Jemand
    08/10/2015 4:44pm

    Temper, temper.

    Your own word is worth nothing. You are yourself a proven liar, as the mod confirmed yesterday. Or an utter idiot, whichever you prefer. You can wait, until I have had a good look both at your posting, and your latest round of blustering and lying accusations against me, which I am going to dissect and comment upon before we get to anything else.

    John”

    But no apologies for your many lies about me. Interesting to see a very very very very very very belated reply from the moderator confirming the truth of my original statement. Very telling of both Craig and his functionaries.

    And Glenn continues his own line of attack by asserting a confused connection between me and zionism. Never mind that I have never posted any support of Israel nor zionism. You just can’t beat made up shit for propaganda. Sometimes I wonder if creeps like the two above are actually charged with a mission to bring down Craig through guilt by association.

  • Jemand ( [*censored* - ask me why] )

    The moderator states – ——
    [ Mod: John, that message from Jemand was indeed deleted by a mod. Jemand had been repeatedly told that his screen-name imputes anti-Semitism, and he would be taken off pre-mod once it was changed. He refused to do so.

    By the way, only one message of yours has ever been deleted, on any thread. You had kindly brought our attention to something, we acted, and the warning itself then needed to be removed. ]

    The only reason for the moderator admitting his sleazy deletion of my comment was that I had visual evidence in the form of a screenshot and, through this, others became witness to it. Had I merely quoted the text of my deleted comment, there would have been no such admission. This is how corruption works – ie anticipating that people do not keep records of malfeasance.

    But the moderator continues with the mischief claiming that I was warned “repeatedly” and that I “refused” to change my name. Lies. I was told once.  Look at my name … Notice anything?

    I have screen shots that I can post when it suits me. But I won’t be bullied into defending myself against lies and false accusations. This just erodes Craig’s reputation further.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Jemand ( [ *Censored* – Ask Me Why ] )
    08/10/2015 2:30pm

    Posting 1 of 4

    [Jemand] : John Spencer-Davis : “For the record, Jemand’s assertion (07/10/2015, 2:53pm) that comments of mine have been deleted from this thread is false.
    . . . .
    [ Mod: No comments from John Spencer-Davis have been deleted. ]”
    I didn’t say that JSD’s deleted comments were on this thread.

    [JSD]: What deleted comments? The mod just told everyone (Thread: “Racism Works In The Tories”, 07/10/2015 7:43pm) that there have been no deleted comments from me, so kindly stop implying that there have been. It’s false.

    And what do you mean, “this thread”? This is the first comment you’ve ever posted on this thread. You just jumped threads again, either deliberately, to confuse matters so that your lies are facilitated, or because you are so incompetent, that you are unable to keep your responses on a single thread. Members of the forum are welcome to take their choice about that.

    [Jemand]: With so many deletions and with the forum sliding across pages, I might have got it wrong and accept that.

    [JSD]: Not good enough. There is no “might” about it. You made a false statement, without question, as proved by the word of the mod, and I would like an acknowledgment and withdrawal.

    As for “so many deletions”, they are clearly your own fault, every single time. You make your handle offensive to the blog in the way you have done, you swear at and abuse the mods, and you have no-one to blame but yourself for having your postings deleted.

    And as for the “forum sliding across pages”, that is your own fault, as well. You have not bothered to confine yourself to one thread, but have changed threads at least three times, either because you are incompetent to confine yourself to one, or for dishonest purposes. It’s a lot easier to tell lies or make false statements about deletions, and what other people have said, both of which you have clearly done, if you are working from several different threads. Forum members can take their choice.

    [Jemand]: However, my statement that JSD’s comments were deleted was obviously not deliberately false, as it was predictable that he would object to a false claim and use it against me as he has done so.

    [JSD]: But it was not predictable that the mod would support my denial. In fact, since the mod had taken no hand in the matter thus far, other than deleting your offensive postings without comment, I had no reason to suppose that the mod would support me (and neither did you), and was rather surprised that it happened.

    I previously made a request to the mod for information, and the mod did not provide it, and you saw that. No blame to the mod – a mod is not required to intervene in disputes between posters – but going on previous experience, available to both of us, you could quite easily have calculated that the mod would not intervene, in which case it would have been your word against mine.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Jemand ( [ *Censored* – Ask Me Why ] )
    08/10/2015 2:30pm

    Posting (continued) 2 of 4

    [Jemand] And I had nothing to gain by making a false statement. No harm done.

    [JSD]: Oh yes, you had, and I will give a concrete example of what you quite plausibly could have hoped to gain in a moment. But let’s look again at this assertion of yours:

    “JSD’s related comments were also disappeared in the shredding of blog records.”

    What (imaginary) related comments were these planned to be, and what were they going to be alleged to have said? You slip a lie like that past the forum and all manner of possibilities are opened up, including one I will give in a moment. Related to this is your abuse of the mod, whom you call Stalinist, implying that the mod is dishonest, probably laying the foundations for accusing him or her of being a liar, which in fact you do with extraordinary vehemence later.

    [Jemand]: But let’s observe these facts:
    1. My comments WERE deleted and the mod has not denied it. No assistance from him there.

    [JSD]: Take that up with the mod. Given the way you have behaved on this forum and towards the mod even before this exchange began, it’s hardly surprising if the mod gives you your precise due and no more.

    [Jemand]: 2.Fedup makes the false claim that I stated that JSD had apologised when the fact is I asked if JSD would apologise – which he has refused to do.

    [JSD]: That is a downright lie. I have never refused to apologise. Prove it. Cut and paste any exchange you can find in which I have refused to apologise.

    You won’t find one, as you know perfectly well, because that is a lie, and a damaging one at that. One thing I am known for (if at all) on this forum is that I am very willing to apologise if I have made a mistake or behaved in an unsatisfactory way. I have done so on several occasions. (You, by contrast, can’t even admit directly that you were wrong about my alleged deleted comments.)

    And guess what? I want an apology for that deliberate lie! What do you think of that? Demanding apologies is a game at which two can play, Jemand.

    I suppose now, according to your own standards of behaviour, I am perfectly entitled to start screaming at you that you are a “lying cunt”, and “scum”, and a “coward”, and tell you to “apologise or fuck off with your tail between your legs”. That brings us to another matter. On Thu 8th Oct, around 4:30pm, and at a time when you could not possibly have known whether I was willing to apologise or not, you posted three or four of the most hysterical, uncontrolled and vilely abusive and obscene comments, addressed to myself, the mod, and Glenn, I have ever seen on this forum (and that is saying something). Most were deleted straight away by the mod. No matter what you think of me, you cannot say that I have ever called you a “cunt”, or “scum”, or told you to “fuck off”, and I want an apology for that unacceptable outpouring of filth, as well. You’re good at demanding apologies. Let’s see if you are equally good at delivering them.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Jemand ( [ *Censored* – Ask Me Why ] )
    08/10/2015 2:30pm

    Posting (continued) 3 of 4

    [JSD]: One more comment on this. This alleged refusal of mine to apologise. Perhaps that’s what was supposed to be in these non-existent “deleted” comments of mine that you invented. Wouldn’t surprise me at all, given that I have now just proved beyond doubt that you are a liar, so the likelihood is that you were lying about that as well rather than just incompetent. I’ll leave that for the forum to judge. If so, the mod put paid to that game, which is maybe partly the reason for all the hysterical abuse.

    Take Fedup’s comments up with Fedup.

    [Jemand]: 3. The mod appears to be willing to confirm to readers that none of JSD’s comments were deleted but slyly remains silent on the question of whether my comment thanking “Fi” ever existed and was deleted.

    [JSD]: The mod was good enough to confirm something without being asked, which he or she did not have to do. Probably because I haven’t called the mod a “cunt”, or “scum”, or a “coward”, or messed about with my name to deliberately insult the blog, or done whatever else you have done to annoy the mod and make his or her life more difficult. You presumably get no more than your exact due, because of the way you have behaved in the past.. That’s your own fault and nobody else’s, but, of course, it’s never you, is it?

    [Jemand]: Well, it did exist and it did get deleted.

    [JSD]: Correct, and I was wrong to say that it did not, and I was wrong to say that you were lying about it. And I am perfectly willing to apologise for that – when I get an acknowledgment from you that you were definitely wrong to allege that comments of mine were deleted, and when you agree to apologise for lying about my alleged refusal to apologise, and when you agree to apologise for your outbursts of hysterical obscenity. That’s fair, it seems to me.

    Otherwise, you can whistle for your apology. With anyone else, I would have apologised already with alacrity, no strings attached, and I invite the forum to consider whether or not that is a believable statement. Not you. You get no more (and no less) than your strict due. Just like the mod gives you. You want to act online like a baboon instead of a human being, you can take the consequences.

    [Jemand]: 4. So both John Spencer-Davis and the mod both owe me apologies – JSD for maliciously accusing me of some wrongdoing

    [JSD]: No malice was involved. I said what I honestly thought, given the available evidence at the time, and I told the forum why I thought so. I even invited the mod to disprove my own statements, which hardly supports the charge that I was acting maliciously. So that’s false, as well.

    Take your demand for an apology from the mod, up with the mod. I wonder if you’ll get anywhere. I think myself that an apology from you to the mod and also to Glenn wouldn’t go amiss, at the very lowest, for your bout of the screaming ab-dabs on Thursday, but that’s between you and your conscience, if you’ve got one.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Jemand ( [ *Censored* – Ask Me Why ] )
    08/10/2015 2:30pm

    Posting (continued) 4 of 4

    [Jemand]: and the mod for knowing that the accusation was false and allowing it to continue anyway. THAT’s the kind of moderation you get here – biased and mischievous

    [JSD]: You have demonstrated yourself, with your screenshot posting, what a deliberate pain in the backside you have made yourself to the mod. Small wonder that the mod gives you precisely what you are entitled to and no more.

    [Jemand]: So, it is with very little satisfaction now, after seeing how sleazy and vulgar this blog gets, that I draw the reader’s attention to my comment on page 1 of this thread, 7 Oct 6:58am.

    [JSD]: No, you don’t. You’ve got the wrong thread again, either as a further deliberate attempt at confusing the issue or else just because there seems to be no end to your incompetence. You really seem hardly able to get the slightest thing right.

    And “vulgar”. Are you having a laugh, Mr “Lying Cunt Scum Fuck Off”?

    [Jemand]: Clicking on my handle/name for that comment will display a screenshot of my original comment thanking “Fi”.

    [JSD]: So, finally, we got it, and as soon as I was able to do so, despite all your hysterical screaming of “cunt”, scum”, “coward”, “fuck off”, and yadda yadda yadda, I examined it, stated to the forum that it looked authentic, and checked it with the mod, who was kind enough to confirm it.

    [Jemand]: This comment was mischievously deleted by the mod

    [JSD]: No, it was not mischievously deleted by the mod – that’s yet another false statement. A large part of the reason I said I thought you were lying about this comment being deleted, was that I couldn’t see why the mod would delete a simple thank you note. I said so at the time. It was entirely reasonable for the mod to delete this comment, and the mod has now explained precisely why it was done, to which your response has been to call the mod a liar. Never you, is it?

    [Jemand]: who has until now refused to provide a confirmation or denial like he is able and willing to provide to JSD in his comment above.

    [JSD]: If I were the mod, I wouldn’t give you the time of day either, after the way you’ve behaved even about matters entirely unrelated to this exchange.

    [Jemand]: JSD can now see the screenshot – if it not subsequently deleted by the spiteful moderator. So I am entitled to apologies from both of these people.

    [JSD]: Take it up with the mod separately. As for me, I am quite willing to offer an apology for saying I believed you were lying about posting that statement deleted by the mod – under the conditions I have outlined above. If you don’t like them, tough luck. You only have yourself to blame.

    [Jemand]: Let’s see if they have good characters.

    [JSD]: Coming from you, that is actually very funny.

    [Jemand]: Will they readily offer those apologies, will they remain silent in shame or will they evade the truth and pursue a new course of abuse?

    Still waiting . . . .

    [JSD]: Well, for my part, you and the forum are not waiting any more. Everyone knows how the matter stands. Now we’ll see who the coward is.

    John

  • glenn

    Well writtenm, JSD – but I think you’ll be waiting a while for an answer. Jemand is someone who likes to wail and moan about how unfair it all is on him, while he abuses others, but only in prime view. This far down on an old thread, it’s just not high profile enough for this attention-seeking cry-baby.

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.