The Philip Cross Affair 772


UPDATE “Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual:

The operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed. I am no psychiatrist, but to my entirely inexpert eyes this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic with no regular social activities outside the home, no job (or an incredibly tolerant boss), living his life through a screen. I run what is arguably the most widely read single person political blog in the UK, and I do not spend nearly as much time on the internet as “Philip Cross”. My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings. Cross does not have the patterns of activity of a normal and properly rounded human being.

There are three options here. “Philip Cross” is either a very strange person indeed, or is a false persona disguising a paid operation to control wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name.

Why does this – to take the official explanation – sad obsessive no friends nutter, matter?

Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.

This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.

The “Philip Cross” treatment is meted out not just to left wingers, but to all sceptical of neo-conservatism and who oppose “wars of intervention”. A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway. As you would expect “Philip Cross” is particularly active in making amendments to the Wikipedia articles of alternative media, and of MSM critique sites. “Philip Cross” has made 36 edits to the Wikipedia entry of The Canary and, staggeringly, over 800 edits on Media Lens. George Galloway remains the “Philip Cross” operation’s favourite target with a quite incredible 1,800 edits.

Just as revealing are the people who “Philip Cross” seeks to protect and promote. Sarah Smith, BBC Scotland’s uber-unionist, has had “Philip Cross” kindly delete references from her Wikipedia entry to family ties that (ahem) may have helped her career. Labour Friends of Israel’s Ruth Smeeth MP has had reference to the Wikileaks released US diplomatic cable that showed she was an informer to the US Embassy on the secrets of the Labour Party, deleted by “Philip Cross”. Right wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross.

“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-con camp, Philip Cross actually wrote the original hagiographic entry. The Guardian’s MI6 contact, Luke Harding, is particularly looked after by Cross, as are their anti-Corbyn obsessives Nick Cohen and Jonathon Freedland. So are Murdoch hacks David Aaronovitch and Oliver Kamm.

There is no doubt that Kamm, leader wirter of Murdoch’s Times, is close the the “Philip Cross” operation. Many people believe that Kamm and Cross are the same person, or that Kamm is part of a multiple persona. Six times I have personally had hostile edits to my Wikipedia page by “Philip Cross” made in precise conjunction with attacks on me by Kamm, either on Twitter, in a Times editorial or in Prospect magazine. Altogether “Philip Cross” has made 275 edits to my Wikipedia page. These include calling my wife a stripper, deleting my photo, removing my reply to attacks made on me by Kamm and Harding among others, and deleting my refusal of all honours while a British diplomat.

Neil Clark and Peter Oborne are among many others who have suffered attacks on them by Philip Cross on Wikipedia simultaneously with attacks by Kamm on other media. Clark is taking Kamm to court for stalking – and “Philip Cross” has deleted all reference to that fact from Kamm’s Wikipedia page.

What is plain is that Kamm and Cross have extremely similar political views, and that the dividing line of those they attack and those they defend is based squarely on the principles of the Euston Manifesto. This may be obscure, but is in fact an important Blairite declaration of support for Israel and for neo-con wars of intervention, and was linked to the foundation of the Henry Jackson Society. Who do we find editing the Wikipedia entry for the Euston Manifesto? “Philip Cross”.

What is particularly interesting is that “Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.

The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.

In response many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.

Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?

I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.

“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.

I have in the past exchanged messages with “Philip Cross”. He says he is a person, and that he edits in conjunction with Oliver Kamm tweets because he follows Kamm and his tweets inspire him to edit. He says he has met Kamm and admits to being in electronic communication with him. That excjange I had with Cross was some years ago. More recent communication with Cross (who has now changed his twitter ID to “Julian”

has been less forthcoming and he has not replied:

George Galloway has offered a reward of £1,000 for the name and address of “Cross” so he may also take legal action.

My view is that Philip Cross probably is a real person, but that he fronts for a group acting under his name. It is undeniably true, in fact the government has boasted, that both the MOD and GCHQ have “cyber-war” ops aiming to defend the “official” narrative against alternative news media, and that is precisely the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation on Wikipedia. The extreme regularity of output argues against “Philip Cross” being either a one man or volunteer operation. I do not rule out however the possibility he genuinely is just a single extremely obsessed right wing fanatic.

Finally, it is worth noting that on Wikipedia, an operation to boost the mainstream media narrative and denigrate alternative sources has the massive advantage that only information from mainstream media sources is permitted in political articles.

In conclusion, some images from the edit pages of Wikipedia articles to give just a little flavour of what I am talking about:

I am slightly concerned lest I am myself getting obsessed. Do you find this as fascinating as I do?


772 thoughts on “The Philip Cross Affair

1 2 3 4 10
  • AntonyI

    How about this for “his” address? GCHQ, Hubble Road, Cheltenham, GL51 0EX.
    Means, motive, and opportunity definitely.
    Then again, they can easily fake it to be in Timbuktu or even London ECY1

  • Hugo

    Wow. I’d not heard of this “individual”, though I am sure we are all aware of wikipedia wars. This one may indeed take the gold medal for directional control. I imagine that some young computer nerd could easily whip up a firefox plugin that would highlight in some obvious way any page that had been edited by this Cross. And, it could be extended to other hyper-editor accounts of a similar vein.

    Nice article.

  • laguerre

    At least Philip Cross is in the British or West European time zone, to judge from his timings, and not disporting himself on the beach in Thailand, or is located in Montana.

  • Mayeaux Wren

    As for your final question re fascinating: yes, it is. Bravo on outlining it so clearly and succinctly. I do love such lines of inquiry, and am disappointed that so few people do it. Having run a blog and having kept an eye on my statcounter figures I found that the spooks were perpetually giving themselves away in the metadata.

    Mind you, they do learn. There was a time when I got more hits from Reston, Virginia than from near-as-dammit the whole rest of the world put together. And then suddenly Reston disappeared from my lists – zero hits. Spooky. For those unaware Reston is the suburb next to Langley and in all likelihood home to more computers than actual residents.

    Ha… just looked up Reston on wikipedia. The initials CIA do not appear on the page. But they used to. But now they don’t. And so it goes…

  • gyges

    It’s so reassuring to know that Wikipedia is not only fallible but seriously flawed. Your post is simply a reminder for us all to keep on thinking in (Graves’) broken images.

  • Tatyana

    I don’t know how it is in your country, here in Russia I would go to police and would say it simple:

    “Officer, Sir, you know there is Internet, it is like a modern library. There is an article about me, with all my honors I’m proud of. There’s a person who goes to the library and deletes information about my honors. The person is extremely hostile and rude when I contact him. Is there something to do about my dignity and reputation?”

    I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=841094669
    screenshot https://drive.google.com/open?id=1x3puL-rumj9pm-6OKQVam9npugHrCa_v

    Let professionals handle the issue.

        • John Goss

          Most police here are just ordinary people doing an important and honest job. However, I and several others, have sent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the Metropolitan Police regarding the death of Dr David Kelly, a weapons inspector who claimed before the Iraq War was declared there was no evidence of WMDs Weapons of Mass Destruction. They disregard their own guidelines, keep you waiting and provide little if any information requested. There has still not been a completed inquest into Dr David Kelly’s death. But that now is becoming the pattern because there were two inquests started into the Litvinenko poisoning both abandoned in favour of a whitewash. As with Hutton likewise with Owen.

    • Charles Bostock

      Tatyana

      “…here in Russia..”

      You’re obviously internet-savvy and interested in a wide variety of political issues. And you’ve become a member of this community, rapidly assimilating its ethos and understanding what it’s all about.

      Now some of us are as interested in Russia as you appear to be in matters concerning the UK, USA, etc. Do you think, therefore, that you could point us in the direction of a couple of blogs/websites in Russia which are similar to Mr Murray’s ? Not identical, of course, just similar in ethos and general outlook.

      (Don’t worry about them being in Russian, some of us will manage fine)

      Thank you.

      • Tatyana

        Hello, Charles, I see we are going this road again? Ok, let’s do it one more time.
        I am internet-savvy because I use it since 1999 and I had good experience in entering different internet communities since. They are all equal, all people on earth are the same.

        For those of you, who are interested in similar Russian blogs I recommend
        Victor Shenderovich https://echo.msk.ru/blog/shenderovich/2199844-echo/
        and
        Alexander Nevzorov https://echo.msk.ru/blog/a_nevzorov/2201968-echo/

        Alexey Navalny https://navalny.com/
        Rustem Agdamov https://drugoi.livejournal.com/
        ————————
        Now back to me. Charles, you are still rather hostile towards me and you still have some concerns about my language skills
        (I didn’t miss your post on page 1 :-))

        I studied Languages and Communications at the Rossinsky University in Krasnodar, Russia.
        English was my main specialization (language, culture and literature), German as the second language, Latin obligatory, French facultative (and bit of self-studyed Italian and Turkish). Higher education in Russia involves music, mathematics, computer science, general theories in physics, philosophy, ethics, so I’m rather well-educated, I suppose.

        I graduated in 2000 but failed to find a well-paid job as a translator or teacher, so I had some experience in several traiding companies, using my language skills just rarely from time to time. I know how to sell computer parts and garden fertilizers, bricks, wall-paper and food flavoring 🙂 I had experience of running a company with 30 employees, at a position of deputy director of logistics and retail.

        Since 2009 I’m a housewife and a self-employed hobbyist, selling on-line at English speaking selling venues.
        And now I enjoy my independence from any kind of bosses telling me who I am and what should I do in their opinion.
        I appreciate this blog for the opportunity to speak freely, because other’s are either downvote (Quora) or delete (Etsy) my posts on the basis it is ‘russian propaganda’.
        —————————
        Having said all the above, Charles, I really do not care of any apologies … Peace?

          • Tatyana

            Thank you, Charls, I’m happy to see your answer! Peace 🙂
            —-
            to prevent further possible concerns – I’m as internet-savvy as to create a simple site using on-line tools and knowing basics of HTML – http://severina.my1.ru/

        • Muscleguy

          Having met a number of Russian fellow scientists I can confirm the wide nature of Russian education. You produce for eg Biologists with far more Maths and Stats than the vast majority of Western Biologists. It rather shames us.

  • Justin Glyn

    I have no idea who “Phillip Cross” is or who, if anyone, is behind this persona, but I admire your tenacity in investigating it – and putting it in a broader context. Many thanks indeed!

  • Lamont Cranston

    > A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway. As you would expect “Philip Cross” is particularly active in making amendments to the Wikipedia articles of alternative media, and of MSM critique sites. “Philip Cross” has made 36 edits to the Wikipedia entry of The Canary and, staggeringly, over 800 edits on Media Lens. George Galloway remains the “Philip Cross” operation’s favourite target with a quite incredible 1,800 edits.

    What exactly sort of edits has Cross made to them? You never seem to mention what the edits are to these people.

    • W Gary Johnson

      That would have made for a very long essay. I think the screenshots were sufficient.

    • IT Bod

      You can take a look Lamont.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Philip_Cross

      Every line shows an edit. Click where it says diff to see the difference that the author applied for that edit.
      At the bottom of the page click “Older 50” to go the next page of listed edits.
      Also at the bottom of the page you can also select how many edits appear per page: “(20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)”

      (Well done Craig – good work)

    • Charles Bostock

      Lamont

      “What exactly sort of edits has Cross made to them? You never seem to mention what the edits are to these people.”

      That was exactly the question I put to people on a previous thread on this subject.

      The only answer I got (and it wasn’t addressed to me buy someone else) concerned a Professor at (I think) Manchester University. The heinous offence reported was that Philip Cross had made an edit to the effect that the good Professor had written for The Guardian twice as opposed to the Professor had written for The Guardian. I must admit I was distinctly under=ompressed by the gravoty if the offence!

      So I agree with you : let those who’re soundng off about Philip Cross give us a couple of proper examples of the man’s turpitude. Eg, where he’s deleted true facts and replaced them with false facts. Or made vaseless accusations with no basis in fact. Several of the people Philiip Cross has edited read this blo, Mr Murray knows some of them personally and some have even commented on this blog. Perhaps a couple of them could be called in to offer examples which would vindicate Mr Murray’s claims?

      • Ian

        Well you could follow up any of the many leads provided by Craig, or read Neil Clark’s blog, or check the edits yourself. Why does everybody else have to do the work for you, or satisfy your demands?

        • Charles Bostock

          Ian

          You know perfectly well that most casual readers have neither the time nor the inclination and perhaps not the ability to do the follow-up you recommend. Why on earth is it impossible for those who appear to feel so strongly about Mr Cross and his edits to give a couple of simple examples re a couple of the people he’s alleged to be getting at? I’m beginning to suspect that the refusal to do so and the fobbing off with “do you own research on the leads”) means in reality that you are reluctant to give a couple if concrete examples because you know that they won’t back up your wilder assertions.

          • JOML

            Charles, you have been very busy posting on this article, so I don’t think you are a “casual” reader. It is yourself who appears “to feel so strongly” to defend Mr Cross. Personally, I think Mr Cross has a political agenda and should be removed from his editing role, with all his historical updates checked for accuracy and completeness. I’m not interested whether you agree with me or not and certainly don’t expect you to explain your perspective to me – and vice versa.

          • Charles Bostock

            JOML

            Thank you for replying on behalf of Ian, who is, I suppose, busily engaged in finding the couple of concrete examples I asked for.

            Feel free to supply a couple of example yourself if you wish.

          • JOML

            As I said Charles, I’m not interested in whether you agree with me or not. You haven’t provided any evidence to support the view that Mr Cross is a genuine, unbiased individual, to counter what this article states. The demands you make of other “casual” posters leads me to believe you have delusions of grandeur. Then again, I could have you completely wrong. Apologies either way.

          • Ian

            you’re not too busy to troll this thread, though. Faux naivety and demanding that other posters supply you with evidence that is already been supplied, which you will then deny, is classic trolling behaviour. Apparently you are too busy, but don’t mind wasting other’s time.

          • Charles Bostock

            And your reply, Ian, is the classic one given by people who’ve been called out and have no better response. Evidence to back up the accusations made – in the form of a couple of concrete examples concerning a couple of people – has NOT been supplied. You have the time to waste to write and call me a troll (and to eagerly echo Mr Nurray’s accusations) but it seems you have no time to step into the breech and provide a couple of examples. This suggests you don’t have any (or, alternatively, you take everything said by Mr Murry as Gospel and pile in with the crowd).

          • Ian

            There are numerous links here, and copious evidence. That you cannot be bothered to click on just one example, or read many of the posts here, just confirms your deliberate obtuseness. I have no reason to supply you with anything, since of course you will then claim to find nothing offensive or wrong with it . It is classic behaviour, which doesn’t warrant a response. Since you have failed to supply any examples of Cross’s edits which are contrary to the allegations, we will take it you are either not serious, or cannot do so. The burden is on you to make your case, not others to dance to your tune. Such effortless arrogant baiting – how utterly predictable.

  • Marjorie Caw

    I am staggered by this and I will never donate to Wikipedia again. (I have given quite a lot of money in the past.) I wish that a had known of Wales’ political predictions. It will now make my reading of Wikipedia articles much more cynical. Thank you.

  • John Goss

    “Do you find this as fascinating as I do?”

    It is fascinating, but predictable. Some entries in Wikipedia are fine, even well-researched. And of course Wikipedia can be found all over the world in all languages. I am sure Jimmy Wales and his paid staff like Phillip Cross are very rich people. I use Wikipedia as a stepping-stone to further research which often contradicts the Wikipedia entry. I find his appeals for funding annoying, but it is only what I have come to expect from a mainstream outlet. “Hey you, pay for this shit will you!”

    • lysias

      Probably the frequent appeals for funding from readers — like those from the Guardian — are meant to disarm suspicions about who might be behind the operations. I suspect both operations are in fact very well funded.

      • John Goss

        “I suspect both operations are in fact very well funded.”

        Me too. Anyone who donates is not discerning enough to find a worthy cause.

  • Ken Owen

    I used to edit on Wikipedia many years ago and I remember having arguments with an editor there who was just there to show Media Lens in a bad light, he used to put quotes from Oliver Kamm in the Media Lens article a fair bit. There are gangs operating on Wikipedia, you can see that on anything about the Israeli/Palestine issue, it’s disgraceful pro Israeli rubbish. I would advise anyone not to even bother reading Wikipedia if you want to learn about anything political or wars. Had an argument with some solider who just used to sit on the British Army Wikipage and would not let anyone put any war crime claims on there. The article on Vietnam War is infested with Americans and their point of view, same thing on many other articles.Wikipedia is a joke. This Philip Cross is just another dick that infests Wikipedia. When you open up website like that it is ripe for abuse by anybody and it certainly has been abused.

  • Charles Bostock

    “Do you find this as fascinating as I do?”

    With great respect, no.

    And I find your threat of legal action very peculiar.

    Those that live by the internet shall doe by the internet.

  • bj

    Has it ever occurred, as shown by the editing times, that two edits (by Cross) on two different Wikipedia pages, happened at the same time?

    • J

      Can a wikipedia account even be logged on by two different IP’s at the same time? If so, why?

  • Bibbit

    I did not know any of this about wiki. Now I will read everything on it with a pinch of salt.
    Sarah Smith is an atrocious reporter. She has the most annoying nasal voice with no screen presence and she has no ‘thinking on her feet’ aptitude.

    She could only have been shoed – in to neo-con Pacific HOuse as daughter of John Smith. Her mother in the House of Lords was another shoe-in. Despite being in Lords for over 20 years she has yet to give her first speech. The Baroness Smith jets up and down from Edinburgh to London with us paying for her to clock up her air miles.

    I also want to know how on earth John Smith was allowed to be buried on Iona, the last resting place of old Scottish Kings? He was never Prime Minister. Of course this was back in the day when Labour saw Scotland as its vassal fiefdom where it could do what it liked without reproach. Can all deceased Scottish Labour leaders be buried on Iona? (McLeish, Murray, McConnel, Dugdale, Lamont – have I missed any of the dullards)? .Is the baroness Smith to be entombed there also like a medieval Queen?

    And just today May announces she’s going to stuff the Lords with yet more Tory life peers!

    Independence anyone to – escape this democratic joke of as country?

  • bj

    Important: Do WP editors get email notifications on their edits being edited or removed?

    • John Spencer-Davis

      I’m not sure, but they can “watch” a page, meaning they are alerted if any changes are made to it. Cross is usually there within minutes, if not seconds, when a page he is watching changes.

      • bj

        To give a possible answer to my own question — one could of course have some script running to check the page contents at regular intervals, and signal an alert when a change has happened. That wouldn’t be hard to program.

  • Clive P

    Craig – excellent detective work. It made me look at my own Wikipedia entry and I noticed that Cross had been editing it. This began only after I started to contribute on this site! I find it difficult to believe this is one person. If it is they must be well paid. I think it’s more likely to be GCHQ.

      • Paul Barbara

        John Spencer-Davis May 18, 2018 at 17:41
        ‘…Although Ponting fully expected to be imprisoned – and had brought his toothbrush and shaving kit along to the court on 11 February 1985 – he was acquitted by the jury. The acquittal came despite the judge’s direction to the jury that “the public interest is what the government of the day says it is”….’
        Was the judge in drag too, dressed as the Queen of Hearts?

      • Tatyana

        I find it disgusting. Whether the fact is true or not.
        Telling in public such type of information is disgusting.
        Having interest in searching for that type of information is disgusting.
        I doubt that Philip Cross has obtained permission from Clive Ponting.

        • John Spencer-Davis

          It’s some schoolkid having a joke. The source that put it in has done a lot of similar stuff, apparently.

    • lysias

      Mr. P., I looked at your Wikipedia page right after you first posted here, and that offensive addition to the page had not yet appeared. I note that the page gives no source for the addition.

      • John Spencer-Davis

        What you are looking at is an early version of the page (2010) which is long before Mr P started posting here. The interesting thing about Wikipedia is that you can look at everything that has been added to it or deleted from it even if it is not in the current page. That particular entry was deleted from the page very quickly, which is hardly surprising.

  • Ian

    So all of this trolling of Wikipedia will result in the same effect as that of the MSM – nobody will trust it.

    What i find more serious is that there should be an absolute right to refuse to have Wikipedia entry on you. Privacy and freedom from false and misleading information should be the prerogative of the individual. i don’t see how a publisher like Wiki can just publish any old rubbish about an individual, and allow others to distort and mislead through access to editing their entry. An individual should be able to sue or have the page taken down. Surely that is a basic requirement of privacy and freedom?

    • Charles Bostock

      Ian

      Just calm down and think for a moment.

      “Privacy” is not the same thing as “freedom from false and misleading information”.

      You would do well not to conflate the two.

      If, in the name of privacy, an individual should be able to refuse to have a wikipedia entry, should that individual also have the right to refuse to let anyone write a biography of him?

  • Dom

    I’m sure somebody, somewhere understands what that means but for the benefit of everybody else, please explain.

  • Garth Carthy

    Oliver Kamm, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen: Hmm. Their names keep cropping up on the Media Lens website:
    Medialens have a similar disdain for the twisted comments from these individuals.
    Kamm is supposed to have had clinical depression – possibly not that surprising if he has been up to such skulduggery!

    • Charles Bostock

      I wouldn’t make too much of Kamm’s “clinical depression” on a blog hosted by Mr Murray. Very below the belt!

    • King of Welsh Noir

      You clearly have no idea what clinical depression is. Lucky you.

      • Charles Bostock

        I probably don’t – but more importantly, does the original user of the term (a certain “Garth Carthy” – nice moniker!) have any idea?

        • Garth Carthy

          I was diagnosed with clinical depression many years ago. So yes, I do know what it means.
          First your information, I read about Kamm’s depression on his own blog.
          All I am saying is that though it is an awful illness, it is often linked with guilt. I hasten to add that I don’t have any reason to think this was the cause in Craig’s case.

          • King of Welsh Noir

            ‘I was diagnosed with clinical depression many years ago.’

            No you weren’t.

            ‘All I am saying is that though it is an awful illness, it is often linked with guilt.’

            No it isn’t. Stop digging.

          • Garth Carthy

            To King of Welsh Noir:
            You’re obviously a pal of Charles (Oliver Kamm/Philip Cross) Bostock.
            Hmm. So you say I wasn’t diagnosed with clinical depression many years ago. How would you know that was true or false?
            Who are you – some third rate spook?

  • Tony_0pmoc

    This morning, I was almost certain, I would have been put into moderation (the naughty boys room) as a result of what I posted very early on Thursday morning. I was correct, and almost relieved. I do not mind being banned,nor moderated in such circumstances, and it is always nice to be freed – to be allowed to post without an editor, deciding whether or not the content is acceptable.

    So as a result of what Mark Golding wrote (I have massive respect for him) I read his links…

    It seems Craig Murray, was not only on the case, but completely went to town on the same evidence.

    I was educated this morning, thanks to Mark Golding, Neil Clark, and Craig Murray.

    mark golding
    May 18, 2018 at 11:08

    I have no wish either to understand these Blairites either and their interventionist neoconservative foreign policies. I look down on falsifiers like rendition supporter and war-monger Kamm who resigned from the Frontline Club after founder Vaughan Smith had given refuge to Julian Assange at the club and ‘Andrew Philip Cross’ later “Julian” on Twitter whose deceptive, refined yet malicious editing of Wikipedia turns my stomach.
    https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/
    http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vicious-vendettas-of.html

    Thank You,

    Tony

  • Liam

    A highly informative read. Thank you very much Craig Murray. I’d like to add a little something to this debate about Wikipedia revisionism and propaganda in relation to the White Helmets ruse being conducted upon the public. There is extensive evidence in this piece that the White Helmets are terrorists and Wikipedia along with numerous media outlets and Snopes are attempting to hide that fact form the public.

    MSM Misinformation: Comparing the Wikipedia Page of the White Helmet Terrorists with the Actual Images From Their Own Facebook Accounts

    https://clarityofsignal.com/2018/05/17/msm-misinformation-comparing-the-wikipedia-page-of-the-white-helmet-terrorists-with-the-actual-images-from-their-own-facebook-accounts/

  • lysias

    The postings of the commenter who calls himself “Charles Bostock” remind me very much of Habbabkuk’ s.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I am in Awe, at the degree of exposure Neil Clark and Craig Murray have revealed, about how all our political institutions and Media, have been completely infiltrated by a totally Alien Culture to the Traditional British values, I grew up in, and still recognise today, and every day, when I meet ordinary British people – regardless of their religion, colour of their skin, or whatever they believe in.

    They say the Fish rots from the head, but it has not corrupted most people I meet on a daily basis.

    The people in control, are not very good. They are not even very nice. They are not all completely war obsessed neocons, but they are very powerful, if you are simply an innocent man or woman, trying to do good for your local community and the world.

    These people will gang up on you and threaten you, and find your vulnerabilities…even worse than The Mafia.

    Anyone who attempts to stand up to them, is likely to be so terrorised, in every personal way, until they give up or comply.

    Meanwhile, my wife and even me, can happily mix with any community – any colour any religion under the sun, safely, without harrassment or fear any where.

    We are not afraid.

    Tony

    • lysias

      Nigel Kneale was already writing about the infiltration by these characters in the mid-1950s, in Quatermass II.

      • Charles Bostock

        Quick change of gravatar there, Lysias! Or should we call you Saisyl (Cecil)?

1 2 3 4 10

Comments are closed.