The Philip Cross Affair 771

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?

771 thoughts on “The Philip Cross Affair

1 6 7 8 9 10 11
  • giyane

    Charles Habbabkuk :
    ” Duke and Duchess of Surrey and not Sussex ”

    Well-spotted Sharp Ears. You must admit he loves you. Sun-bathing with Tel Aviv beach babes got nothing on having a pop at his very own internet voyeur target on CM blog. Besides there was air-raid siren warning all Israelis to stay inside because crazed Palestinians were trying to cross the border and murder Israeli citizens in their beds. Much safer to take a pot-shot at you under the camouflage of Charles Bostock.

    • Charles Bostock

      Calm down, Giyane.

      As far as I can see, there have been loads of Earls of Surrey BUT the title Duke of Surrey appears to have last existed between 1374 and 1400 (forfeited in 1399) and was held by Thomas Holland.

      It just struck me that this would have been a good time to resuscitate, so to speak, this ancient and noble title so long absent from the history of England.

  • Nevermind, Duke of Doggerland

    Just a little title somebody presented me with for my birthday. Such a notorious position mid North sea, once the haunt of Klaus Stoertebecker, a pirate that interrupted The first EU trading pact, the Hanse with his frequent raids on ships. Today it is today the preferred position for an alternative energy hub between like minded nations who do not give debt ridden fracking companies a carte blanche to circumnavigate the planning laws of this country so they can do as they like in Yorkshire Lancashire and various other locations.

    Fracking Surrey, after it has got a new hangers on lead, will become so much easier now.

    For those readers who find the tedious personal attacks of one Charles Bostock/Habbakukl/ etc. etc, one of the many aliases used here by this disruptive clown, rather boring THIS PERSON HAS BEEN BANNED FROM CRAIG MURRAY .ORG for his personal attacks.

    Is it because he’s got orders to be here?
    Could s/he be lonely seeking attention?
    Does this person have any friends?
    Should we introduce him to Tinder and spice up his life a little?

  • Les Wilson

    An excellent article showing just how low the UK deep state will go to protect their interests, but I do not think the low is in.
    I have often went to “Wicki” to check stats and facts on Scottish/English battles of old, a few do not seem to match the historical facts as they were known.
    So this is a revelation, well it is to me, However, I had the feeling some things were being skewed. I am however disgusted how “Wicki” is now a political weapon. Am I surprised er no!

  • John A

    I happily missed all the gushing stuff yesterday. But one question, is he now the Duke of East Sussex or West Sussex? They are different places these days.

  • Fiona

    I find it disturbing. Wikipedia is acceptable as a source even in universities. For it to be so manipulated is appalling

  • Hatuey

    I don’t wake up in the morning and decide it’s a “voice of reason” day. I wake up and read stuff such as that I find on this website and am compelled by reason to respond.

    You all know my views on social media and the web. You as progressive minded people can’t win here because you are fighting a war that 1) has no prize, and 2) absorbs your time and energy.

    In short, the information you are fighting and fretting over is likely to affect about 2% of society at most. Nobody cares, except you, and a few miserable trolls.

    Now, on Wikipedia you folks are particularly stupid and hypocritical. For the same reasons that you are stupid and hypocritical in regards to newspapers and TV news.

    When it suits your narrative, you are happy to quote from these sources. In doing so, you yourselves do more to endorse and validate them than anyone else. Indeed, the only reason you care about what Wikipedia is saying on a particular subject is because you want to make it a more reliable source.

    A child can see these contradictions, why can’t you?

    If you have something useful or important to say about a particular subject, build yourself a blog and put some time into it. It isn’t difficult and it’s free. Within about 12 weeks you should be above Wikipedia in organic google search results on that particular subject.

    • iain

      “If you have something useful or important to say about a particular subject, build yourself a blog and put some time into it. It isn’t difficult and it’s free.”

      Please provide a link to your own blog where blind, self deluding fools can have their eyes opened by your wisdom and commonsense.

      • Hatuey

        I’m not not an infowarrior. Moreover, I couldn’t care less what Wikipedia is saying about anything; it ceased to be a reliable source the day it was stillborn.

        In academia we research a subject thoroughly. Once we are confident that we have a thorough understanding of a subject, we might put together an article or even a book. Others who are interested might read what we have written and object or add to the debate.

        Wikipedia couldn’t be further from that. For some unfathomable reason, a stoned guy who watched a couple of YouTube videos is encouraged to think he has a meaningful contribution to make on Wikipedia. He hasn’t.

        One of the reasons I hate the web and social media is that it facilitates all this.

        Before you ask, one of the reasons I come here is to see what Craig, a qualified and experienced expert in various areas, has to say.

        99% of Internet activity is mindless, meaningless, pointless, stupidity.

        • Iain Stewart

          Another Iain writes: Well said Hatuey (sounds like vigorous spitting). I find this blog entertaining for its banter and the playground teasing amongst its various “high functioning” commenters.
          There have been suggestions here that (the very strange) Philip Cross is an “aspie”, which would be consistent with the obsessive behaviour and lack of empathy detailed in Craig’s post.

          • Iain Stewart

            “The aspie who came in from the cold.”
            Scientists with Asbergers are actively sought after in certain fields of analytical research precisely because of the need for obsessive attention to tiny repetitive details. This seems plausible in the present case too. In which case Philip Cross deserves sympathy rather than the Spanish Inquisition. But not those who may be pulling his strings, of course.

        • iain

          So nothing useful or important to say by your own terms. Just trolling on a medium you affect to despise, connecting with the odd moron to mock people afflicted with Asperger’s. I sees you baby.

  • Natasha

    If Gamergate taught me anything, it’s that Wikipedia was instrumental in smearing gamers who fought back against these feminist conartists (Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper). They (Wu and Quinn) were so idiotic that they were public offering money to edit Wikipedia pages in their favour and discredit Gamergate movement. In their words “do we know anyone from the inside who is favorable to our cause.”

    Twitter has locked my account, so I cannot post my own links here (and they aren’t publicly searchable anymore) but I reported the editor/mod Ryulong many times to Jimmy Wales. The problem with Jimmy is that he will not respond to a man. So I took the message of other male gamers and repackaged it in a nice way for him. I was not only one. He must have been fed up of seeing “Ryulong” name appearing all the time. An investigation indeed showed that this pay-to-play Japanese editor was corrupting Wikipedia pages to favour aforementioned feminists and smear male gamers (who just wanted fairness in game reviews).

    A tweet when Ryulong debacle ended:

    A Medium article on corruption & bribery us gamers noticed in Wikipedia (2014-2016) – until Jimmy made a statement and took action.

    All in all, Gamergate prepared us well for life. When Hillary was upto no good against Trump, it was simply déjà-vu!

    I wish you guys goodluck. Twitter wants me to verify my phone and this is not going to happen.

  • Bruce

    I think your site is under attack again mate. Had some issues connecting to it around 7pm Melbourne time on Sunday.

  • Sharp Ears

    Mandelslime was so entranced by the WEDDING, he said on the radio this morning that he might get married himself. Presumably that would be to his young Brazilian friend, Reinaldo..

    Mr Shakespeare appears not to like Mandelson greatly.

    PS Reinaldo is alive unlike his compatriot, Jean Charles, who was gunned down by multiple dum dum bullets into his head on the orders of Ms Dick. RIP Jean Charles. The police officers involved had been trained in Israel. The coroner at your inquest, Sir Michael Wright, recorded an open verdict. It should have been murder.

    • Charles Bostock

      Yes, I suppose it would be. After all, Lord Mandelson is homosexual and Reinaldo is his long-standing boyfriend. Thank you for bringing the news of their impending marriage to our attention and don’t spend too long brooding about it, same-sex marriages are quite common these days apparently.

    • Charles Bostock

      I realise that Lord Mandelson isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but attempts to damage him by slyly alluding to the fact that he is homosexual smack of indecency and are either homophobic per se or an attempt to play on the possible homophobia of others.

      • George

        I don’t detect any homophobia from Sharp Ears although there may be a hint of it from Mr Shakespeare. Nice attempt to divert, Charles.

          • Iain Stewart

            I caught a whiff myself in the “presumably” a little like a similar remark the other day to someone being “incidentally” the member of a synagogue congregation. Perhaps an old fashioned Roman Catholic upbringing, expressed here in “RIP” for example, and elsewhere as hopes of someone or other “burning in hell” could be an explanation.

          • Charles Bostock

            Iain Stewart

            Well, I’m glad that I wasn’t imagining things since at least one other person – you -got the same impression (well, perhaps more than just you but the others aren’t concerned and/or honest enough to say so).

            The synagogue attendee you mention was Ms Jo Coburn and and her attendance at the synagogue was brought to our attention by…well, you can guess whom.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Charles Bostock May 20, 2018 at 15:48
            Queers can do what they want, no probs. It is a FACT that the NWO ‘1984’ ‘One World Gulag’ promote this kind of behaviour. I believe most ordinary people still haven’t been snowed into the ‘new OK’, but yep, they probably will eventually, given the ‘promotion’ by the MSM propaganda arm of the PTB.
            So far as I’m concerned, ‘queers’ should not be persecuted, but it just ain’t right what they do.
            I’m an old-school Christian, and though brought up as a Catholic, now, whilst remaining a Christian, I believe the Vatican is a cesspit.

      • Jonathan

        The word “homophobia” suggests that someone is afraid of sodomites. Quite the contrary in my case since I’m just disgusted by ,in my opinion, perverts who is in great need of spiritual guidance and professional psychological assistance, not encouragement.

        What people do in private is their private business. I have no need of imposing my sexuality on others in sexual parades in public but I abhor ego- inflated dramaqueens a who do.

    • Charles

      Must try harder Sharp Ears, armchair dissidents really shouldn’t rely on cutting / copying, fawning over the host and sniping at commenters whenever it takes her fancy. Try a bit of research.

      Jean Paul was Not murdered by Met police officers the culprits were the Met’s “designates” (Stockwell1 report), They used ammunition that was not issued to Met officers until 2011, they were photographed at the scene holding weapons that were not Met issue (identified by their “Police” baseball caps). Not anyone’s issue actually they were modified, one an assault rifle with a sniper rifle stock another fitted with a red dot laser target illuminator issued under a special forces emergency MoD procurement.

      The people who attended the hearing lied, one actually cried when he recalled how 11 shots were put into Jean Paul at point blank range (and 4 shots actually missed him!). One of the killer’s gun jammed (Glock 9mm) “stove piped) that’s when the casing doesn’t exit the ejection chamber and sticks out like a stove pipe. That would normally (for the Met) put the weapon out of action, not this hero he cleared the blockage and carried on putting bullets into JP’s head.

        • Herbie

          So this was not a normal policing operation that escalated to tragedy.

          A special team involved.

          What was it?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Charles May 20, 2018 at 17:34
          F*cking hell, for a moment I thought you were bringing out a new conspiracy theory of Jean Paul Sartre’s death.
          Jean Charles is said to have been an electrician, and MAY WELL HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE UNDERGROUND.
          Had that been the truth, he may have inadvertently seen suspicious activities re certain Underground trains, so the PTB decided he needed to be silenced.
          Does anyone on here actually know what job and for whom Jean Charles was working? I’m sure an ‘All Points’ MSM request would glean the info, but I suspect the PTB (who already know, but aren’t saying) would prefer that the info is somewhere out in the long grass in the Boonies.

          • Charles

            Don’t know who he worked for but I it was a sick twisted PR op put together by the two Blairs, it didn’t actually matter who got whacked.

            The CPS wouldn’t touch the criminal liability sk the HSE had to prosecute the Met under Health and Safety failings. the taxpayer got fined and hit again when they had to stump up compensation to the Menezes family.

            Good old British justice

          • Charles

            By Mike Smith (the Times 31st July 2005) the same guy who rang Andrew Gilligan in the early hours before Dr David Kelly’s body was discovered to tell him the police knew Kelly was already dead) For review purposes


            Could Stockwell ‘police officer’ be a soldier?

            BRITISH special forces soldiers took part in the operation that led to the shoot-to-kill death of an innocent Brazilian electrician with no connection to the London bombings, defence sources said last week.

            Jean Charles de Menezes was tailed by a surveillance team on July 22 as he caught a bus to Stockwell Underground station in south London. He was shot eight times when he fled from his pursuers at the Tube station.

            The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that the army provided “technical assistance” to the surveillance operation but insisted the soldiers concerned were “not directly involved” in the shooting.

            Press photographs of members of the armed response team taken in the immediate aftermath of the killing show at least one man carrying a special forces weapon that is not issued to SO19, the Metropolitan police firearms unit.

            The man, wearing civilian clothes with a blue cap marked “Police”, was carrying a specially modified Heckler & Koch G3K rifle with a shortened barrel and a butt from a PSG-1 sniper rifle fitted to it — a combination used by the SAS.

            Another man, dressed in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers, was carrying a Heckler & Koch G36C. Although this weapon is used on occasion by SO19 it appears to be fitted with a target illuminator purchased as an “urgent operational requirement” for UK special forces involved in the war on terror.

            The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said.

            Known then as 14 Int or the Det, it is reported to have formed the basis of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the newly created special forces unit stationed alongside the SAS at Hereford. The men include SAS soldiers serving on attachment and are part of a team of around 50 UK special forces that has operated in London since the July 7 bombings in which 56 people died.

            Special forces counterterrorist experts have been regularly used to support police at Heathrow since the September 11 attacks. They moved into London a day after the July 7 bombings and have been supporting the police and gathering intelligence to help snare the suspects.

            Members of SO19 (technically known as CO19) are trained by SAS and SBS instructors. One key tenet of that training is to ensure that a suicide bomber is killed rather than wounded, which would allow them to trigger a bomb.

            The use of multiple shots to the head is the modus operandi of the special forces, whether from the SAS, the SBS or the undercover intelligence operators used in the Stockwell operation. Over the past 30 years the SAS has developed a reputation for never allowing gunmen to remain alive, an attitude shown most graphically during the 1980 Iranian hostages siege and the Gibraltar IRA killings eight years later.

            “It is vital to strike fear into the minds of the terrorists,” one former SAS officer said. “In an ongoing situation such as we have now the fear must be directed to the fact that we are watching them and will eventually (get) them. They need to know that they cannot escape.

            “We know they are happy to kill themselves but that doesn’t mean they are happy to be killed by others. As long as they evade the police they will think they are in control but the minute they are intercepted they lose control.”

            The Ministry of Defence insisted last week that the military involvement was limited in the operation that led to de Menezes’s death. “We would describe it as technical assistance as part of a police-led operation under police control,” a spokeswoman said. “It is a particular military capability that the police can draw on if needed. It was a low-level involvement in support of a police-controlled operation.”

            The Det is made up of the army’s best urban surveillance operators using skills honed in Belfast against republican and loyalist terrorists. Its speciality has always been close target reconnaissance: undercover work among civilians, observing terrorists at close quarters, and carrying out covert searches of offices and houses for information and weapons.

            The unit was very egalitarian when it operated in Northern Ireland. An operator’s rank was always regarded as less important than his or her capabilities; it was also the only UK special forces unit to use women.

            The Det broke into homes to gather intelligence and plant listening devices or hidden cameras. Weapons were left where they were found but “jarked” with tiny transmitters placed inside them that would provide warning should they be moved.

          • Charles

            July 2005 Jean Charles killed with Dum Dums

            Page 80 of 179 Stockwell One Report

            “The Assistant Commissioner referred to recent legal advice obtained
            from Edmund LAWSON QC. The Metropolitan Police Service has
            waived legal privilege and disclosed this advice. Mr LAWSON concludes
            that in his opinion the authorisation of the use of 9mm 124 grain hollow
            point bullets lay within the power of the Metropolitan Police or its
            delegate. He adds that the use of this ammunition in a war situation
            would prima facie offend against the Hague Convention, which does not
            apply to police operations. They can be justified as a necessary counter
            measure to suicide bombers. “

            May 2011 Decision taken to issue Dum Dums to Met police


            “It follows an £80,000, 12-week-long testing programme of the 9mm hollow point bullet. The new bullet will replace the current 9mm soft point variation.”

    • Charles Bostock

      It’s in the tabloids, Rentoul tweeted about it and now Sharp Ears has blogged about it (twice). YCNMIU !

    • Spencer Eagle

      Mandleson… the guy who, upon seeing some green stuff on sale in a chip shop in his then Hartlepool constituency, ordered a side helping of guacamole. It was in fact good old mushy peas.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Hope you followed my advice about ignoring the Royal wedding.. While I don’t give a good bowel movement about how the rich spend their stolen money, I do think that British subjects should be concerned about Parliament wasting such funds in private excesses, Scotland and other occupied areas of the UK are never going to get real democracy by tolerating such malgovernance.

  • c

    Thanks for this – I was naive enought to think Wales was one of us. Wikipedia direct debit cancelled.

  • John Stone

    I note that both the corrections to Wiki’s entry on Melanie Phillips regarding Andrew Wakefield are incorrect. Holding an academic medical qualification and being licensed to practice medicine are completely different things. His degree was not revoked, so this is simply mendacious and petty. It was also correct to say that the original sources for Wakefield’s alleged wrong-doings were entirely British, although enthusiastically taken up by media bullies in the US. If you attempt to correct any of this stuff on Wakefield’s own entry it is instantly and automatically switched back to the official version.

    As to the real history of Wakefield a very good reference is:’affaire-Wakefield-shades-of-Dreyfus-bmjs-descent-into-tabloid-science/

  • Nevermind, Duke of Doggerland

    Thanks for putting the spotlight on to the history revisionists, Craig, who can seemingly do as they like on Wikipedia, when it comes to facts and figures they can’t be taken as the full shilling, pardon the pun, is it just another Atlanticist excretion?

    Wake me up when its pitchfork time, please. Shall we all now stop bothering to link to Wales’ses favourable facts?
    Will he try and fake or skew scientific facts about global warming, thermohaline speeds, methane concentrations above fracking oil/gas wells, etc.?
    Because if our Phillip ever so Cross does that he will be skewing the future, not just the past.

    • Squeeth

      PC is part of the zionist cloak-establishment claque so he can only be refuted by editors willing to beat him at his own game. Collecting a bibliography of RS that aren’t boss class farragos is a good place to start.

  • Charles Bostock

    I should point out that given the young age of Prince William’s children, it is highly likely that yesterday’s Royal wedding is the last Royal wedding many of us on here will see in our lifetime. That’s one reason why all those still able to do so should have lain back and enjoyed it yesterday, so to speak.

    • Anon1

      It’s a shame that they have to be told, but I hope that the next time all the guests manage to wear morning coats.

    • Republicofscotland


      Thank goodness for that, I don’t think the taxpayer could afford another £32 million to go down the drain, on these sponging slackers.

      • Anon1

        The taxpayer paid nothing for the wedding. The public security cost was covered by the taxpayer but that is no different to an FA Cup final or visiting head of state. The benefit to the economy of more than £1billion easily outweighs it. What is your next gripe?

        • Charles Bostock

          I think his next gripe will be ‘why, oh why, has reel guid left me, he must have been eliminated by the deep state’.

        • Squeeth

          Really, who audited that figure? How much will go to the destitute people swept up and seen off?

    • Charles Bostock

      The problem, Je, is that one man’s balance is another man’s bias. ‘Twas ever thus, I’m afraid.

      The rule of thumb appears to be this:

      someone (let’s say bj) finds someone (let’s say George Galloway) admirable. If bj finds that the Wikipedia article on George contains only positive things, then bj will say that the article is “balanced”.

      if, on the other hand, the article contains both positive and negative things about George, then bj will complain that the article is biassed.

      It’s very easy to understand.

      To put it another way : “I am balanced, you are biassed”.

      • Je

        Wikipedia acknowledges itself that it takes an… lets call it establishment position… on subjects like extrasensory perception. An encyclopedia should not take a position – it should give other people’s position, perhaps say how popular or dominant the thinking is. But not be overtly one-sided – sceptical or whatever. But Wikipedia does that. Its acknowledges it does that. And that’s not individual contributors… its acknowledged bias of Wikipedia.

      • Garth Carthy

        It’s not that simple and you know it.
        The fact is that there are edits made in Wikipedia on an industrial scale and they all seem to point to the right wing establishment and quite possibly, the intelligence services.
        If it is found that there is anything like a similar number of “left-wing” attempts to distort the truth on Wikipedia, then you may have a point.

        • Charles Bostock

          Actually, Garth, it is that simple. You know, most matters are fairly simple if you’re willing to throw aside prejudice and preconceived notions and look at the facts honestly.

          • Garth Carthy

            You are hardly the one to lecture anyone on throwing aside prejudices and preconceived notions to look at the facts honestly. Absolutely risible hypocrisy!
            These matters are not simple, as you suggest. Life is paradoxically both simple and unimaginably complex.
            All I know is that the world needs a good dose of Socratic self-examination. I admit I need it quite often but you are a prime candidate (unfortunately you are in the company of many millions of similar “patients”).

          • Republicofscotland


            I had to stop myself from laughing out loud and wildly after reading that comment.

          • Herbie

            “most matters are fairly simple if you’re willing to throw aside prejudice and preconceived notions and look at the facts honestly.”

            Complete and utter cobblers.

            It’s impossible to interpret data, facts, information and so on, without some form of worldview or theory.

            The key is to know your worldview and how it was formed.

            You do this by consciously creating your own worldview.

            If you don’t create your own, one will be created for you, typically these days through mass media. And that will be a very very partial worldview.

            It’s just the old British empiricism nonsense again.

          • Iain Stewart

            Herbie says, “It’s just the old British empiricism nonsense again.”
            And yet cognitive neuroscience increasingly says otherwise. It seems that David Hume may have been right all along.

        • Charles Bostock


          I only used your name (well, it’s not really your name, is it) because it’s short (= less typing; time is money!) and because it makes me smile (yes, I know I shouldn’t). Apologies and three cheers for the Monarchy all round!

          • bj

            It happens to be as real as it’s gonna get.
            You really have a way annoying people, mister or misses Charles Bostick. I wonder now if that is your real name — is it?

            The image of Galloway’s WP-page that apparently stung you, its purpose was illustrative, not argumentative. I apologize for confusing you.

            As to the monarchy and its related infantility — like I said, a far as I am concerned they can be chased into the North Sea.

          • Herbie

            It’s Habbakuk, the supposedly banned multi sock-puppeting troll, and all round destroyer of harmony wherever she finds it.

            Phillip Cross is a saint compared to this one.

  • Nevermind, Duke of Doggerland

    If you can’t stand up because you have no spine, kneel and take it as it comes……

    • Charles Bostock

      Let me test the following theory on readers before someone else does so: the Queen’s decision to name Prince Harry and his wife the Duke and Duchess of Sussex rather than the Duke and Duchess of Surrey was taken under pressure from the powers that be and various intelligence agencies.

      The facts: Surrey has 11 MPs, all of whom are Conservatives. Sussex has 16, 2 of whom are Labour, 1 is a Social Democrat and 1 is a Green.

      Nothing to be gained, therefore, by creating a Duchy of Surrey, whereas the creation of a Duchy of Sussex might be a cynical and cunning move to capitalise on the love of the people for the monarchy in an attempt to get the good electors of Sussex to vote in a clean slate of 16 Conservative MPs at the next general election.

      I can think of no other explanation.

      • Republicofscotland

        Of course the sponging slackers have also sullied the good name of Dumbarton, never mind independence will see it redeemed.

        • Anon1

          “The good name of Dumbarton”

          My sides!

          What’s the coat of arms? A half drunk bottle of bucky, on a field of pro-independence graffiti with Neds rampant?

          There’s some lovely bits of Scotland. But Dumbarton!

    • Tony_0pmoc

      It seems that I am banned from Off-Guardian too, or used a word that does not comply with their moderation policy, or maybe I made a mistake. I wrote the following-

      I thought this was a deliberate pre-planned operation from day one, and the Skripals were probably complicit. The press and the photographic crew, and the media, and the fire engines, and the guys in chemical protection suits, were all on the scene, far too quickly for a couple who puked up on a park bench. They had all been warned in advance, to make this a media show.

      It is entirely possible that The UK Government were told to do this, and reluctantly complied, but decided to do The Monty Python version, such that no one intelligent, could take these events seriously. I was particularly struck by Theresa May’s performance in The House of Commons, when she made her first speech on these events. She appeared very very nervous, as if she really did not want to say, what she had been told to say, but she did it anyway.

      Maybe the objective was to convince The Russian Government, that The UK Government has gone completely mad, and they are not to be taken seriously, and do not represent any kind of a threat to anyone, including the comedy script writers.


      • Herbie

        “Maybe the objective was to convince The Russian Government, that The UK Government has gone completely mad, and they are not to be taken seriously, and do not represent any kind of a threat to anyone, including the comedy script writers.”

        That seems to chime with the Trump and current US approach.

        I’d say they’re just trying to confuse their opponents.

        The only question is who are their opponents.

        Is it Russia, China etc, or is it we the peeps in USUK.

      • frances

        Just a bit of background info on the immediate appearance of police, people in hasmat suits, ambulance, etc. There was a govt drill that day, I forget the name of it; it was something like, “biological weapons attack or CW attack. So very convenient that a drill just happened to be running and happily, it happens all the time.

  • Sharp Ears

    Finally ref the wedding. We don’t even have a guest list to see which slebs and chavs were filling their gullets at the public’s expense. 600 of them! in the Great Hall at Windsor and then another 200 odd at Frogmore House, uninhabited as I said before. Goodness knows the cost of the upkeep on such a large empty building. I suppose that there is a vast bureaucracy behind the royal farce, maintaining the estate, paying the bills, employing the hundreds of skivvies and the like.

    Perhaps we could have another annus horribilus.

    • Charles Bostock

      I wonder why anyone should wish an annus horribilis on anyone else.

      • Republicofscotland

        Ask Netanyahu, we all know which people he wants to have a annus horribilis. Mind you he just has them shot, which definitely spoils their year.

        • Charles Bostock

          I hadn’t realised Mr Neyanyahu contributes to this blog. My apologies, Sir!

    • Charles Bostock

      Did our grandfathers and fathers fight WW2 to protect the right of anonymous elements to wish an annus horribilis on the monarch?

          • George

            Were our grandfathers and fathers asked about the right of anonymous elements to wish an annus horribilis on the monarch? Was it a pressing issue in WW2?

          • Charles Bostock

            Many of the monarchs since the Commonwealth have doubtlessly experienced their annus horribilis (or indeed, several) but it is heartening to think that the Monarchy has survived and indeed gone on to thrive. Just think of the sorts of people who would have had a good chance of becoming Head of State had Britain been a republic (whisper…..Mr Blair, had he chosen the right moment…..)

          • Republicofscotland

            It’s all just centuries of Ruritanian bollocks, cumulating in the most recent event. Royality is a quaint notion, and it should be consigned to the history books, there’s no room in modern society for over lauded, spoilt sponging slackers posing as some sort of betters.

          • Charles Bostock


            Hmmm…..royalty a quaint notion, eh? Perhaps you should tell that to the good citizens of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Liechtenstein and Spain, they might be interested to hear it. Alternatively, you might try asking the good citizens of countries like France, Germany, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria what they think of some of their past Heads of State.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Sharp Ears May 20, 2018 at 14:53
      Wedding? What wedding? Last wedding I was invited to was in way back in the late ’80’s or early ’90’s.
      I cannot dispute I have heard tell of a ‘wedding’, recently, but as I wasn’t invited I should vorry, already?
      I am proud to say, more by luck than judgement, I saw no TV footage (A football game was on in the pub, then it switched to boxing (barbaric, I didn’t watch it). But, thankfully, no ‘weddings’.
      I’m proud to be in the 2% (?) who didn’t watch the Bullsh*t.

    • SA

      Neither I think does this all explains why it was nescessary for the OPCW chief Ahmet Uzumcu as reported in the Torygraph that
      he “……told the New York Times the amount of Novichok used – around half a cup of liquid – suggests it was created for use as a weapon rather than for research purposes.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Sharp Ears May 20, 2018 at 14:58
      What is the formula for this ‘Satire’? Is it even more powerful and smart than Novichoks?
      I’ve already had the street door handle removed and replaced with a remote access fob.
      Very nice find; I’ve reposted it on the 9/11 UK Truth Forum, and on FB.

  • Loftwork

    Wikipedia has been increasingly moving away from its role as alternative encyclopedia and seems uninterested in vetting its editors. So – especially with Craig’s Philip Cross evidence in hand – I’m not going to be supporting it in future. Sad, because that drives us back to more fragmentary alternative wikis and the established online encyclopedias. Wikipedia can still be helpful for matters of non-political science but it’s on the slippery slope to total expedience.

  • Elise

    I’m curious if you found a time that this began or increased. When did this Cross character first appear? Wikipedia entries were rather bereft of info in their early days, then over time became very detailed and linked, then a few years ago is when i noticed it taking a dive in quality and non bias. For example, i noticed that all healing modalities are now called “paeudoscience” in the first sentence. Reiki practitioners certainly have little input on the reiki page for example. Thank you so much for shining the light on this.

    • Hatuey

      You wouldn’t need people shining light if you avoided the various dark orifices of the Internet.

      I have a rule of thumb. If it’s mainstream, it’s crap. Try it and improve your life.

      • bj

        The point of this discussion, as I understood it, is to try to establish whether or not it is ‘mainstream crap’, and if it is, they way in which it is.

        • Herbie

          My view is that it is mainstream crap..

          So, it allows a spectrum of opinion within much narrower boundaries than is necessary for full understanding.

          The same way that msm operates. That way it looks like it gives “both sides”.

          It airs a narrow range of pro and contra positions on any issue, which never get to the root of the matter. Controlled opposition.

          It’s fake debate. The illusion that your facts and opinions matter.

          Much of US and UK nonsense over the past few years has centred on controlling alternative sources of information.

          They don’t want freedom of debate.

          They want to control debate.

          They need to control debate.

          Failing that, their next best is a chaos and confusion about what’s what.

    • Muscleguy

      If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s a duck.

      I suspect you are one of those who has no idea what an actual science and and what its strictures are.

      Yours Muscleguy, BSc, PhD.

  • Anon

    This kind of complete and blatant disdain for the intelligence of deplorables only points to one culprit, habba !! Or its the rachel maddows and the baghdad bobs.

  • Alaine Lowell

    Yes John, Deeply concerned about the information war against ordinary citizens around the world. This is Orwell on steroids but is happening because they have lost the narrative. We will continue to bring out the truth. I suggest a new site to out all the Wiki b.s. I find that I rarely reference Wikedpedia as there as so many sources of real history, politics and news. Now to get the rest of the world on board.

  • Sharp Ears

    Mr Abramovich is having trouble renewing his ‘investor visa’.. He is the 13th richest person in the UK with a ‘fortune’ of £9.3billion. That’s what stripping the assets away from the Russian people does for one.

    Chelsea owner Abramovich experiences UK visa renewal ‘delay’

    ‘The delay comes amid increased diplomatic tensions between London and Moscow after the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.

    BBC home affairs correspondent, Daniel Sandford said Mr Abramovich appears to be able to run his businesses in Russia without significant interference from the Kremlin, suggesting that he is reasonably close to President Vladimir Putin.

    But he said it was not clear if the delay in renewing his visa is in any way linked to the deterioration in relations between the two countries’.

        • Hatuey

          Okay, so a guy who fleeced Russian resources is “mates with Vlad” and is possibly being denied a visa. Now what?

          • Herbie

            Anon1 only does associations and relations.

            You associate with those deemed good, you’re good, with bad, you’re bad.

            Not meant to further understanding, just keeping official narratives live.

            The fact that it’s reported in media and commented upon perhaps indicates some pressure is being applied to Russian oligarchs living in UK. Gaming in some way. But hard to know without further information.

  • snickid

    I have now published a draft Wikipedia page (appended to this Comment) at:

    I urge those with more knowledge than me – and more expertise with Wikipedia – to develop this page into complete entry. It is time for Mr. Cross to step out of the shadows and into the limelight!

    ‘Philip Cross’ – hereafter referred to as ‘Cross’ – appears to be group of people masquerading as a single individual. ‘Cross’ has been active for over fifteen years in altering the Wikipedia entries of anti-war figures to include critical commentary while removing positive information. ‘Cross’ has also added positive comments to the Wikipedia entries of numerous right-wing figures, such as the Times columnist, hedge-fund manager and Iraq war supporter, Oliver Kamm, and Melanie Phillips, columnist for the Daily Mail.
    Recent exposes of ‘Cross’ have been produced by Craig Murray and Off-Guardian:

  • Dave

    Yup. Wikipedia is stacked with pro CIA-propaganda admins and volunteer moderator cliques of people who violate every Wikipedia moderating guideline to censor facts that are unflattering to US propaganda. Just look at the history for the page for the 2014 Crimean referendum, and see how hard Wikipedia mods and admins tried to prevent the inclusion of public opinion polls from appearing on the site – all the tag-team editing they did, all the false allegations of people posting opinion polls being sock puppets (they weren’t) and posting from non-reputable sources (they didn’t).

    All the original edits are there now (as they should be), but some years back there was a concerted effort by Wikipedia admins to prevent that information from appearing on the page.

    No country spends more and makes more effort to propagandize people on social media than the US does. And I’m sure that US agencies have stacked Wikipedia and other public-editing websites with their own people to propagate and push US state lies.

    Even the hysteria over alleged Russian troll farms was a part of the USA’s own troll farm and social media disinformation program, meant to demonize Russia for allegedly doing what the US itself had already been doing and at a massive scale for years.

    Israel and the US are the pioneers of social media troll farms, and the US had an enormous and sophisticated $200 million troll farm program already in 2010:

    Israel currently has programs that pay university students $2,000 a month to post pro-Israel propaganda in social media. Canada, the UK, Ukraine, Poland, and others also all have troll farms.

    • zoot

      wiki bios of neo-nazis in the ukrainian govt were also edited en masse after they assumed office.

    • james

      thanks dave.. that is how i see it, although you have given more concrete details to my impression..

    • Richard

      If you consider that most intelligence agencies have a ‘man in the mac’ embedded in them, it makes sense they would be in Wikipedia too. Thanks for the info very interesting

1 6 7 8 9 10 11

Comments are closed.