Emma Barnett: A Classic “Philip Cross” Wikipedia Operation 120


High Tory, ex Daily Telegraph and Murdoch, expensive private school, Emma Barnett is BBC Politics’ rising star and stood in as host of the BBC flagship Marr programme on Sunday. She was there rude and aggressive to Labour’s Barry Gardiner. The “highlight” of her career so far was during the general election when on Radio 4 Women’s Hour she demanded instant top of the head recall of complicated figures from Jeremy Corbyn, a ploy the BBC never turns on the Tories.

The most interesting fact about Emma Barnett is that her exclusive private education was funded by her parents who were pimps and brothel keepers on a large scale, for which both were convicted.

I know of no compelling evidence as to whether Barnett was, or was not, complicit in her parents’ activities, which financed her education into adulthood. But that this background is interesting and unusual is not in doubt. However the MSM’s image protector, “Philip Cross”, has been assiduous in, again and again, deleting the information about Barnett’s parents from Wikipedia. Not only has Cross deleted the referenced information of her parents being brothel-keepers, he has repeatedly inserted the ludicrous euphemisms that her father was a “businessman” and her mother a “housewife”.

Cross has also deleted references to Barnett – who wrote for the Telegraph and then for Murdoch’s Times, being “right wing”. He has instead inserted claims that criticisms of Emma Barnett following her aggressive Corbyn interview were “anti-semitic”, in a classic Cross move to undermine any left-wing point. Naturally he had references from the Times and the Guardian – evidence free articles – to back up these claims – and naturally from journalists whose Wikipedia pages Cross curates. You get the circle?

On 21 June 2017 editor Alfonz-kiki complained that Cross’s continual whitewashing of Barnett’s entry was by “paid PR”. He pointed out that he had references on her parents’ brothels from the BBC and the Daily Telegraph. Alfonz-kiki is one of scores to have separately noticed and complained of Cross’s activities over years, but Cross has been defended by Wikipedia again and again and again.

Barnett is demonstrably right wing from her Murdoch and Telegraph columns. Her expensive private education – which got her where she is – was undeniably paid for by the proceeds of prostitution and by the trafficking in persons that led to the operation being closed down. But Philip Cross makes sure you can see none of that on Wikipedia.

In case you are saying that Cross is justified, Barnett’s parents activities were not her fault and ought not be on her Wikipedia page, let me remind you of one thing. The same “Philip Cross” edited my own Wikipedia page to state that my wife Nadira used to be a stripper, sourced to the Mail. Cross abuses family information, as all other information, to defame dissidents or to burnish Establishment defenders, not according to a moral code.


120 thoughts on “Emma Barnett: A Classic “Philip Cross” Wikipedia Operation

1 2
  • Sharp Ears

    O/T Jonathan Cook’s open letter to Frankie Boyle who had Baddiel and others on his new show to create more of the a-s smears against Corbyn and the Labour party.

    Frankie Boyle: Your new show betrayed Gaza
    21 May 2018

    Dear Frankie Boyle,

    I’d prefer not to be writing this as an open letter, but you didn’t leave me much choice: I can no longer engage with you on Twitter because you blocked me (and many hundreds of others, it seems) for criticising the first episode of your New World Order TV show on Friday.

    Since then, having purged your Twitter feed of critics, you have created a series of straw men. In the worst, you have suggested that those unhappy with the show are really closet racists for objecting to the fact that you spent half of your 30-minute schedule allowing your guests, led by David Baddiel, to flay Jeremy Corbyn for a supposed anti-semitism “crisis” in the Labour party. Presumably that offers you a comfortingly circular proof of Labour’s anti-semitism problem.
    /..
    https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-05-21/frankie-boyle-your-new-show-betrayed-gaza/

    On BBC2 apparently – Series 2 (2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Boyle%27s_New_World_Order
    [edit]
    Episode 6 Original air date18 May 2018
    Guests David Baddiel and Joe Lycett
    Propositions Discussed”In 4 Years’ Time, Labour Will Lose Britain’s Last Ever General Election” & “We Have 12 Hours Left To Abolish The Monarchy”

    Didn’t see that either.

    What is in the air that is making people so nasty at the moment?

  • John Orr

    I’m guessing the parents illegally laundered their proceeds of prostitution and avoided tax on the same.

  • J

    I notice Philip Cross did a series of edits on Gary Webb’s wiki entry in March this year. His first edit altered the article from this:

    “On December 10, 2004, Webb was found dead in his apartment shot twice in the head. His death was ruled a suicide.

    To this “Webb committed suicide on December 10, 2004.”

    Quite a substantial alteration of meaning, as I’m sure whoever made it would agree.

    • Paul

      OK, I’ll bite. What would you regard as sufficient evidence that someone committed suicide in the case that no-one is known to have witnessed the death?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Paul May 21, 2018 at 13:53
        If you knew about the Gary Webb case, you would be very skeptical that Gary committed ‘suicide’, but highly suspicious he was ‘suicided’. He upset a number of very important people, including the Clintons and the CIA.
        And it is also highly suspicious for someone to shoot themselves TWICE in the head.
        His book was titled ‘Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion’, and Bill Clinton was smack dab at the centre of it (as Governor of Arkansas, where Mena Airport was located).

        • Paul

          By coincidence I recently attended a talk on the subject of someone who allegedly committed suicide by shooting himslef 5 times! The discussion by people with first-hand knowledge of firearms and pathology was quite enlightening.

          The problem I have with the coimment is that if you decide that no “ruling” by a court/coroner/whoever is valid then you’re going to live a very depressing life, and, logically, your only recourse is anarchy.

          • arthurfaeleith

            But the original entry included the court/coroner’s ruling. What is wrong with mentioning that he shot himself twice in the head?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Paul May 21, 2018 at 14:52
            If you believe that in highly-charged cases ‘..court/coroner/whoever..’s ‘rulings’ are not highly likely to be swayed by political pressure, bribery, or blackmail, then you are extremely naive.
            Remember Dr. David Kelly?

          • Clark

            Arguing about whether it was a suicide or not is the wrong approach for Wikipedia. Philip Cross removed well-sourced information – the two shots to the head – and that contravenes Wikipedia guidelines. On the other hand, it is a Wikipedia guideline to present court findings as direct fact.

            The answer is to separate the two pieces of information; ie: “Webb was found dead with two shots to his head” with an appropriate citation from before the coroner’s hearing, followed by “which was found to be suicide” with the existing citation. Removing the citation you added would then be contrary to WP rules.

      • Tony Broomfield

        How about shooting yourself in the head TWICE?
        I would have thought that even if the first was a lousy shot, the trauma would have precluded a second shot?

  • Node

    We can safely assume that the Philip Cross ‘operation’ is sanctioned by the UK deep state, if not actually run by them. It is too big and too influential to be under their radar. Therefore, for the time being, it is a strong indicator of who they regard as friends and enemies.

    I’d never heard of Emma Barnett till today, but with a high degree of confidence I can label her as untrustworthy due to her being a protégé of the Dark Side.

    • Clark

      Wikipedia of course has an arrangement with governments; truly classified information is removed by administrators such that its original inclusion and its subsequent removal do not show in the article history.

      Therefore “Philip Cross” looks to me like a media/PR operation rather than anything done by government.

      • lysias

        Maybe that is why I found no trace of the edit that removed the passage saying Stefan Halpert was working for the CIA and its UK counterpart, whose name Autocorrect is not allowing me to post.

        • lysias

          On this tablet where I have been able to turn off Autocorrect, I am able to type MI6’s name.

    • bj

      No. It is in a way too amateurish.

      I think Jimmy ‘Jimbo’ Wales, once at a reception, promised some big shots –for sh*ts & giggles– he would allow a selected set of editors some extra room.

      That may have been on his own initiative, or it may have been after some gentle pressure.

  • mrjohn

    Her parents’ behavior is not her responsibility.
    Her best policy would be to make it public herself, and say “So what?”

    • Anthony

      Craig didn’t say Barnett was responsible for her parents’ behaviour. His point is that all reference to the source of her private school fees was edited out by Philip Cross. A guy edited IN allegations about Craig’s wife on his Wikipedia page.

    • Tony Broomfield

      She did do that its here
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3636992/Dad-s-prison-shame-broke-heart-BBC-5-Live-s-new-star-6-2million-brothel-keeper-father.html
      I agree this is not about her though its about “Philip Cross”, who probably does not exist, but is just a name on a Wiki Account
      No to mention the fact that Cross also wrote an abominable lie about the wife of Craig Murray along similar lines
      Hard to sue someone who doesn’t exist for libel though innit?
      I am going with the “Conspiracy Theory” that Wikipedia is one big bag full ‘o Lies, purely on the grounds that when the wikiman Wales was taken to task he showed all the signs of being a total arsehole and I would like to see him tumble
      Overreaction?
      What?
      This is a direct attack on Democracy and YES I do want to see heads roll

    • Some Anonymous Commentator

      “Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his `whores’. ”
      Source: Manchester Guardian article linked in post, 2nd para under heading “Emails”

    • Andrew Hodgson

      From the Manchester Evening News article, – ” Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his `whores’. “

    • Sharp Ears

      We can clearly see where ‘Philip Cross’ is coming from and to whose agenda he is at work.

  • David Murdoch

    On the topic of being tarnished by your parents’ deeds, from the cited Manchester Evening News artice,

    “Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his `whores’. ”

    Sounds like complicity to me…

    • Royd

      I do wonder what the content of those emails were. It is not stated in the MEN article. In the interests of fairness and objectivity, might she have been taking her father to task? Or do they prove her complicity?

  • Sharp Ears

    Barnett’s twitter is tedious. She is a self promoter. Never ending plugs from her and all and sundry on her Marr Show stuff.
    https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett?

    She is also crude. Perhaps she thinks this is funny. She apparently had a baby earlier in the year.
    https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett/status/964073475857149953

    Her salary does not appear in the lists supplied by the BBC. She probably has her own company to which her salary is remitted. A lower tax rate than Income Tax.

    She refers to her parents in this piece. https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/885196/emma-barnett-radio-5-live-presenter-interviewer

        • Garth Carthy

          What? You mean like the MSM on Jeremy Corbyn or anyone who else who questions the establishment?

      • Garth Carthy

        “This isn’t all about Barnett”. Isn’t it?
        I think Barnett has made it all about Barnett.
        If she acted in a more professional way instead of trying to score points by trying to close down interviewees, then she wouldn’t have had the spotlight put on her. She seems to want the spotlight: Well she’s got it…suck it up, as they say…

  • H Sickle

    Calling Mr Philip Cross.!
    Whoever has his contact details should please contact me….I need a Wikipedia page ASAP!
    I can assure Mr Cross that I meet all the pre-requisites for his involvement in this project.

  • Oliver Kamm's cast-off foreskin

    Mr. Murray, that is so dreadfully unfair. Her mother under pretence of keeping a bawdy-house, is a receiver of stolen goods.

    • SA

      Interesting article. But if written by say Ken would have been labelled as anti-Semitic.

  • FranzB

    I listened to Sarah Montague interview the leader of the Kensington and Chelsea council on the Grenfell fire today ( 72 deaths and no arrests so far) on the BBC R4 World at One. I checked the edits on her Wikipedia page and found that Philip Cross had been editing her page (along with Gareth Griffith-Jones who seems to be doing the business on Emma Barnet’s page as well).

    The interview by Sarah Montague was disgusting. It gave the leader of K & C (Elizabeth Campbell) plenty of room to make excuse after excuse as to why tenants still haven’t been housed. Her smarminess was bad enough but expected, what really disgusted me was Montague feeding dolly drop questions to Campbell for about 15 minutes. David Lammy who followed on got about 5 minutes.

    There seems to be some sort of systemic issue here where essentially Tory leaning BBC wallahs can rely on their wikipedia pages being looked after by various editors.

  • alasdairB

    I would normally think that ‘the sins of the father should not be visited on his children ‘. However in this instance private letters from her father to Emma Barnett whilst enjoying her privileged private school education, and produced by the prosecution in court made reference to his ‘whores’. Whilst not involving her personally in the family business of prostitution , brothel keeping and trafficking, she must from an early age have been aware it was the source of income funding her education and supporting the Barnett lifestyle. Therefor I contend that she is being economical with the actualite as to the date, at university apparently, when describing her shock and horror at discovering her parents source of business and income. The case was extensively covered by the Manchester Evening News, The Red Tops and the subsequent appeal by the Jewish Chronicle.

  • Sharp Ears

    The execrable father knew how to find the right legal team.

    Brothel owner’s £4.2m appeal win
    Ian Barnett: living on benefits. Photo

    A J**ish man convicted of making millions running a string of brothels in Manchester has had his proceeds-of-crime court confiscation order reduced by £4.2 million after winning an appeal that could affect future prosecutions of people operating in the sex industry.

    Three judges at the Court of Appeal in London upheld a claim that a Manchester judge had wrongly ordered the confiscation of £4.2 million of brothel earnings made by Ian Barnett, 60, from Prestwich. Mr Barnett had already forfeited £21,000 in the first of his two convictions for operating brothels, preventing a judge from confiscating immoral earnings from the previous six years, under a legal technicality. He is now liable for £873,010 of immoral gains made after 2005.
    /..

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/brothel-owner-s-4-2m-appeal-win-1.30821

    Note the complicity of the Greater Manchester Police in allowing the ‘string of brothels’ to operate. Corruption at the highest level. Did the MPs like the long standing Louise Ellman know what was going on?

  • Clark

    I see that a rather non-encyclopedic edit by BernardCrofton was reverted for being unsourced:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Barnett&diff=842273764&oldid=842269012

    That reversion was acceptable editing. If anyone wishes to update the page with sourcing, the following search results should prove invaluable:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=ian+Barnett+conviction+manchester

    Brothel boss who made £5m from string of Manchester massage …
    manchestereveningnews.co.uk/…/brothel-boss-who-made-5m-853116
    2 Feb 2011 … Ian Barnett, 59, had tried to claim the proceeds of crime hearing at Manchester Crown Court should not go ahead because he had been a …

    ‘Vile and immoral’ man jailed – Manchester Evening News
    manchestereveningnews.co.uk/…manchester…/vile-and-immoral-man-jailed-943459
    18 Apr 2010 … Ian Barnett, 56, of Ingledene Avenue, Broughton Park, had earlier … Sentencing him at Manchester Crown Court, Judge Anthony Ensor said: …

    School aide laundered brothel cash – Manchester Evening News
    manchestereveningnews.co.uk/…manchester…/school-aide-laundered-brothel-cash-946427
    19 Apr 2010 … A TEACHING assistant has been convicted of laundering thousands of … Ian Barnett, 56, a former surveyor, was last month jailed for three …

    Brothel owner’s £4.2m appeal win – The Jewish Chronicle
    thejc.com/…/brothel-owner-s-4-2m-appeal-win-1.30821 – Cached – Similar
    29 Dec 2011 … Ian Barnett: living on benefits … The court heard that Mr Barnett’s prostitution businesses, “whilst not condoned by the local … how much Mr Barnett will pay, after the court upheld the Manchester court’s actual fine of just £4,000 …

    PressReader – The Jewish Chronicle: 2012-05-04 – Brothel owner …
    pressreader.com/uk/the-jewish-chronicle/…/281578057675771
    4 May 2012 … Ian Barnett, who was given a threeyear prison sentence in 2008 after admitting running brothels in Manchester, is involved in a number of legal …

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Editor “Melcous” deletes reference to Emma Barnett’s mother’s conviction on the grounds that “daily mail is not a reliable [sic] source”, while simultaneously reinserting the Daily Mail as a source for her presenting the Andrew Marr show (in preference to the Huffington Post).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Barnett&diff=next&oldid=842432844

    I think this just shows what a shambles Wikipedia editing can be unless you learn to do it properly.

  • glenn_nl

    This has something of the Barbra Streisand effect – I doubt that many people would have bothered looking up these details in wikipedia for Emma Barnett, but thanks to all these protective edits, a lot more people are now aware of them.

  • Jude

    Another very informative piece. My only quibble would be that I’m not sure the terms “right” and “left” have much objective meaning in today’s political landscape – if indeed they ever did. Neither the Telegraph nor the Murdoch press is socially conservative in the slightest degree; even by the standards of so recent a decade as the 1980s, they are left-liberal on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, transgenderism and so on. You may agree or disagree with their stance on these things, but it sure ain’t right-wing by the old-fashioned definition. I would say Murdoch, the Telegraph and the modern Tory Neocons might be better classed as globalist authoritarians; pro big business, pro “free trade”, pro western aggressive militarism and strongly anti-libertarian on issues like surveillance and free speech.

1 2

Comments are closed.