Bridget Phillipson has been accused of allowing the Education Blob to run riot with her Schools Bill, slipping in all the horrors that the Tories rejected time and again. This is certainly true in regard to parental duty. If adopted, the proposals would shift the British education system onto the illiberal German foundation that allowed the Nazis to monopolise children’s minds, and which MPs rejected decisively for that reason in 1944.
The charge against the Secretary of State
Bridget Phillipson is fast becoming the story. This is not good for any Secretary of State, but especially not for one who had been heralded for some time as the future Queen of Education. Within weeks of rushing her ‘landmark’ Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill into Parliament, her ability to do the job is in the spotlight.
The rug under Phillipson’s feet was given a massive jerk by Katharine Birbalsingh who, having gained the reputation of ‘Britain’s strictest headteacher’, published her letter to the Minister in full after the two met on February 3rd. Ongoing media criticism caused the Department for Education (DfE) to publish the official Government minutes of the meeting eight days later. Its efforts however have failed to stem the flow from her critics. Writing in the Standard, Toby Young of this patch and the co-founder of West London Free School, aptly described Phillipson’s plan for education as “Nobody is allowed to win“.
A week later Will Hazell and Richard Vaughan amplified her failings with a story headlined ‘How “naïve” Bridget Phillipson’s education U-turns left her battling for her job‘. They cited an unnamed “Government insider” as accusing Phillipson “of presiding over dysfunction”.
Describing the education system as a long-established battleground between the ‘traditionalists’ and the ‘progressives’, the authors assert that some traditionalists are now accusing Phillipson of “bowing to a resurgent ‘Blob'”. Pointing to the similarities between the current Bill and the failed Conservative Schools Bill (birthed and laid to rest in 2022), they emphasise the significance of this:
The parallels between the two bills have led to claims that the DfE is quietly but persistently pursuing its own agenda to impose new controls over academies. One Government source told the i paper: “Ministers can say they want to do X or Y and officials can often say it may be too difficult or unworkable and then just suggest a plan they have straight from the drawer.”
Whilst acknowledging that “it is difficult to verify such claims”, they reported comments from an ex-employee of the department that “some parts of Phillipson’s bill… were repeatedly proposed by officials in the department under the Tories, but always rejected”. This would appear very plausible, given that the two bills are so similar, with the current incarnation apparently having been fed on steroids compared with its predecessor.
In loco parentis or in loco civitatis?
In my previous article I owned up to being a long-time home educator at heart. As such, I have been following the political debate around the under-valued but vital civil liberty which has guaranteed family-based learning as a legal choice in Britain for over eight decades. Its roots go back further than that though, as recently explained by Rhys Laverty in the Spectator, in an article titled ‘The problem with Labour’s home-school crackdown‘. Spelling it out, Laverty explains that “in the UK it has always been very simple: centuries of English common law mean that if a parent wishes to keep their child at home to be educated it is none of the Government’s business”.
At this juncture it’s necessary to turn our attention to the bill’s ‘small print’, namely the accompanying ECHR Memo. This lengthy document explains how the department reconciles the bill’s provisions with human rights legislation. Two sections of the bill seek to introduce extensive proposals in regard to “Children not in school” registers and bring “independent educational institutions” under close Government oversight.
In order to justify “any interference with Article 8 and 14 rights” in some of these proposals, the authors of the Memorandum cite a European Court judgment, Konrad v Germany (2006) app. 35504/03. This case was lost by the Konrad parents, who had argued that EHCR Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 guaranteed their right to ensure an education for their children in conformity with their own religious convictions. The court found this not to be the case, based on grounds that both German Basic Law (Constitution) and the Baden-Württemberg School Act – the state in which the family lived – both made school attendance compulsory for the majority of children (with limited exceptions permitted).
Relying on this judgment, the DfE asserts in paragraphs 161c and 178c of its memo that “the state can insist on compulsory education, in school” adding that so doing is “within a country’s own ‘margin of appreciation'”.
That this direction of travel is absent from the face of the bill raises significant cause for concern. For a start, it shows a departmental lack of appreciation of the very different legislative foundations of education in England and in Germany. Simply put, officials cannot surreptitiously change British law through non-statutory guidance and the small print of memoranda. It is not to Phillipson’s credit that she has failed to challenge her staff on this matter, especially when it appears that previous Tory incumbents did so.
The difference between British and German law is striking. Article 6(2) of German Basic Law states:
The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall supervise them in the performance of this duty.
Further, Article 7(1) grants the state supervision of “the entire school system”. These two provisions were also embedded in the 1919 Weimar Constitution, as Articles 120 and 144.
According to Felizitas Küble however, writing (in German) in 2017, private education at home was not prohibited, though such articles had existed in previous constitutions from 1717. She cites the unadopted Frankfurt Constitution (1849) as stating, “Home schooling is not subject to any restriction”, a position which remained in place through to the Prussian Compulsory Schooling Act of 1927. Claiming that this settled position “changed under the National Socialist dictatorship”, she illustrates her point by quoting in full paragraph 453 of Mein Kampf, and stating that Hitler’s autocratic views were implemented in the Reich Compulsory Schooling Act of 1938 and have remained in place post-war.
Protecting liberty for successive generations
The dangers of the German approach to education were uppermost in the minds of British politicians in Churchill’s war Government as it was drafting the 1944 Education Act. This was steered through Parliament by ‘Rab’ Butler, a Conservative MP and President of the Board of Education. On March 21st 1944, during the Committee Stage, MPs debated Clause 34 which fixed in legislation that common law cornerstone of the British understanding of education, as identified by Rhys Laverty in the Spectator. It read:
Duty of parents to secure the education of their children.
It shall be the duty of the parent of every child of compulsory school age to cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
This foundation remains intact in our current 1996 Education Act (Section 7), and places the responsibility for education firmly on the shoulders of a child’s parents, not in the hands of the state. This was intentional, and with good reason, on the part of the Government of the day. Frustrated that amendments to this clause had been disallowed, a few MPs did try to have it deleted because they objected to the “or otherwise” component.
Their main objection will be familiar to any readers who follow today’s political narrative around education. The first speaker in 1944, Hugh Lawson (Skipton, Common Wealth Party) declared that it contained “a bad principle because it still leaves the two systems of education which we have in this country today”. He later asserted that the choice was between “a society based on class privilege” and “the abolition of class privilege”. Familiar sentiments even today, but whilst it may have been seen at the time as enabling the rich to engage private tutors for their children, today’s British home educating communities are one of the most diverse cohorts in society. Many families exist on a single salary and therefore cannot possibly be classed as materially privileged.
Lawson and a small band of co-belligerents were firmly rebutted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, James Chuter Ede (Labour, South Shields). Responding to the debate and several interjections, Ede stated:
Let us realise that what the hon. Members are asking is a state monopoly of education. Surely we have seen enough in Europe during the last few years to indicate the danger of that. … I do not believe, and the Government does not believe, that it has the right to prescribe the only form of education that shall be given in this country.
Members left the dissenters in no doubt of their support for the primacy of parents over state, voting Ayes 216, Noes 4, “That the Clause stand part of the Bill.”
Undermining the foundations
Eighty years later, bubbling up from within the matrix which is the Education Blob, has come a serious suggestion that without thorough Parliamentary scrutiny of proposed primary legislation, officials have the authority to impose compulsory schooling on all children.
There is clear evidence that this is not some new idea Phillipson has sold to them since she took up her role. No, it has been on their shopping list of reforms for some time. In October 2021, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) report into Child protection in religious organisations and settings investigation was published by Parliament. Home educators were somewhat astonished to find that their futures had been discussed in these sessions, when Kate Dixon, then the Department of Education’s Director of Schools, had appeared as a witness before the panel in August 2020. Details of what she said in regard to the department’s objectives concerning home education, which had not been spelt out at the time, are explained here, though there is no mention of the department’s attitude to the human rights of home educated children and their parents.
As Dixon’s appearance was drawing to a close, the chair opened up the session for questions from the panel. Prof Sir Malcolm Evans asked her for the department’s thoughts on how to make its intentions “compatible with the obligations under the protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights on the state when it assumes responsibility in relation to education to ensure that such education is in accordance with parental, religious or philosophical convictions”. Whilst confident that this had been considered, Dixon did not have the explanation to hand and promised to write to the panel with the answer.
The department’s additional evidence was published on IICSA’s website in March the following year. The document addresses four issues, with the item of interest in this context being Section C, starting on page 4. The second paragraph reads:
The rationale that these proposals are consistent with the article rely on the judgment in Konrad v Germany (2006), a case on home education. This case makes the points that :..
Essentially, the rest of the response has been copied into the current Bill’s ECHR Memo twice over, including the affirmation cited above:
The state can insist on compulsory education, in school, and that the aims of ensuring acquisition of knowledge and of integrating minorities into society are legitimate justification for insisting on this, within a country’s own ‘margin of appreciation’.
Preserving the bulwark is essential
Here then is evidence that Hazell and Vaughan were correct to report suggestions that Phillipson allowed “a resurgent ‘Blob'” to hand her a raft of policies which had been repeatedly rejected by Tory ministers, and she did little more than sign them off.
If this is so, then it would indicate that she is indeed not up to the job she has been given. Of far greater concern however is her lack of understanding about what makes the British education system the polar opposite to its German counterpart. The principle that the state has primacy in the education of children failed to protect the Germans from a totalitarian regime which forced every child into school in an attempt to mould them into its leader’s narrow mindset.
Even if we don’t see such an outcome ourselves in the next few years, if Phillipson’s Blob-inspired bill is not disarmed, it could easily be seized upon by any future despotic Government, Left or Right, and employed for its own ends. Unless, of course, British people – not just home educated ones – stand up and defend their established British liberty to opt out of compulsory state indoctrination.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Most so called journalists are either establishment lefties or they know which side their bread is buttered
Name some journalists who dug into the folly and evil that was “covid”. Toby Young, Peter Hitchens.
And how many had the stones to speak up for Julian Assange. They are a bunch of pathetic little worms who should change their career.
Good point. Hitchens banged on about Assange.
Allison Pearson and Liam Halligan at the DT were pretty sound ….. after the first few weeks when the DT was just promoting the propaganda.
Good to know. Precious few though.
Watergate couldn’t happen anymore. Most journalists seem to work in their pyjamas.
Watergate was an op. The reporters were useful idiots.
All true and beautifully articulated.
And yet 9m electors voted for this dangerous and entirely well-established bullshit.
We are screwed.
Well said. We have a uniparty state and millions of people who should know better voted for more of the same. Anyone who starts grumbling to me about the state of our nation under assault I first stop them and ask how they voted. If they admit voting for the Uniparty then I politely tell them they have only themselves to blame and they are part of the problem.
Probably people voted for the Uniparty because the available alternatives were perceived rightly as useless.
If it is your view that the alternatives are useless then perhaps, all things considered it is safer to vote for an alternative that is useless than any of the establishment parties who are committed to Net Zero economic chaos, wokery/transgenderism, the pursuit of critical race theory, the sexualisation of children, white population replacement, creeping back into the EU, courting war with Russia, the WEF agendas and further erosion of the nation state via cooperation and commitment to global NGOs.
Because a) the media are just loudspeakers for Government broadcasts; b) the media has got the Left-wing, authoritarian regime it desires, which is doing its best to shut down the media’s annoying, dangerous rival… the Internet.
This isn’t exactly news or surprising given that journalists did this through the entire Scamdemic, because they’re all bought and paid for establishment mouthpiece hacks.
Anyway, as regards to the two-tier justice situation, why didn’t this nutter go to jail because he’s a ‘terrorist’ based on this obvious demonstration of misogyny? Seriously though, is this ‘misogyny=terrorism’ supposed new law even a ‘thing’? Just send the guy down for assaulting three people, who happen to be women in this incident. But he’s Muslim so he got a suspended sentence instead. But if this is what he’s like in public ( a bit like the Nandos psycho hitting the waitress ) what on earth is he like behind closed doors? It seems to come a bit too free and easy to some when you see how comfortable and confident they are in attacking females. Almost like they know full well they’ll only get a slap on the wrist at worst….Yvette Cooper, take note. ( She will not. )
BTW, can anyone explain what the point of suspended sentences are? I literally don’t see the logic. You’ve either broken the law or you haven’t, which carries a jail sentence or it doesn’t. White people are being sent to jail for literally doing the opposite to this guy and NOT attacking/hurting anyone yet he walks?
”A man berated three women “prostitutes” for not wearing traditional Asian dress and putting on make-up, then violently attacked them, a court heard.
Muhammad Hassan, 26, assaulted the victims after spotting them at a petrol station in Bradford.
In a 51-second attack captured on CCTV, Hassan grabbed the driver and slammed her head on to the dashboard of her vehicle.
He then grabbed another woman’s hair and punched her in the head before hitting the third woman.
Hassan, from Bradford, was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years.
Ayman Khokhar, prosecuting, told Bradford Crown Court Hassan knew the three women.
The group had stopped for fuel at the Prince of Wales Service Station on Harrogate Road while on their way to a dinner on May 25.
Hassan pulled up alongside the women and appeared to be “refuelling his car slowly on purpose”, the court heard.
The women decided to wait until he had left before getting out of their vehicle as Hassan had previously objected to their non-traditional dress and make-up.
He called them “slags” and “prostitutes” and demanded that they dress conservatively, the court heard.
After paying for his fuel, Hassan marched to the women’s car and punched and pushed them before driving off while the women called 999.
The victims suffered swelling, bruises, red marks and scratches.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-assaulted-three-asian-women-175956196.html
Isn’t it just one additional step before a custodial sentence? Sort of like a last warning?
I think the above article just illustrates the two-tier justice the UK is experiencing perfectly. It’s all completely mental. Don’t attack somebody, you’re off to prison because you shared a meme or went to a protest and shouted at police/a dog. Attack somebody, you get to avoid prison altogether, just do a bit community service and keep your nose clean. That must surely reassure the victims that you’ve traumatized. It also makes Yvette Cooper look like a total idiot because the world and their dog can see that this entire ‘misogyny’ lark is all about curtailing free speech further. We don’t need any extra laws, just the ones that exist to be implemented appropriately, which is clearly not happening.
Meanwhile, Laurence Fox has the remedy for the above triggered douchebag and his ilk. I had to laugh at one reply: ”Close your eyes and think of Diane Abbot”
https://x.com/LozzaFox/status/1828762903249400263
Couldn’t agree more.
We.could probably even get rid of quite a few.
It means if you reoffend – for anything – you go to gaol to serve the original suspended sentence plus whatever new sentence is imposed.
It is supposed to encourage you to be a good boy.
Still, not much justice for those women he attacked!
I would like to know what the sentence would have been if the assailant had not been a Muslim.
I’m guessing that it would not have been suspended (and the criminal would be having seven bells kicked out of him in prison).
It just seems to me that the UK law is fluid, which basically means it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Meanwhile, speaking of the dratted Yvette Cooper and Labour government. I think they’re going to have to recruit more police;
”The Home Secretary is understood to be considering a new “zero-tolerance” approach, which would see police officers encouraged to record more non-criminal hate incidents.
The move would be a reversal of changes to the laws brought in last year by the Tories, who issued new guidance that ordered the force to stop recording incidents just because someone was offended.
Coming into effect in June 2023, officers are currently restricted to only recording incidents motivated by “intentional hostility” and “where there is a “real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence”.
The changes were implemented in a bid to preserve free speech after concerns were raised it was being curtailed.
One “trivial” case included a man accusing his neighbour of racial hatred after he whistled the Bob the Builder theme tune at him, whilst a student who was added to police files after scuffing a copy of the Quran caused Suella Braverman to act and implement the changes.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/yvette-cooper-considers-plans-to-bolster-hate-crime-laws-despite-fears-over-free-speech/ar-AA1pz3ZI
Of course if he wasn’t a Muslim he wouldn’t have done it in the first place.
Fair point. But if a white person did assault Asian ladies like that then it would have been viewed as a racist crime which seems to compound the felony by a significant factor, for reasons which escape me. Same as knife crime, not so much fuss made about black on black but if it’s white on black all hell let loose. Basically it is the ethnicity of the criminal which dictates all.
The whole George Floyd episode was based on racism but was there any evidence it was racially motivated when you consider that the Policeman and Floyd knew each other, and had ‘history’.
I’m sorry, but do people at the Daily Sceptic actually still believe the official press hold power to account at all? Really?
Here is a good rule of thumb. If you don’t want to be brainwashed by the establishment, stay the hell away from official media and journalists with credentials like Downing Street press passes.
You could hear Beth Rigby of SKY NEWS urging and imploring Starmer to rejoin the EU. She was desperate for him to give her the nod and the wink. But ofcourse he wasn’t going to give the “far right” any ammunition, so he just called it all “closer relations” etc. But you can see where this is going with Starmer stating “No, this is not about reversing Brexit”———–You total cretin, that is exactly what you want.
A side note: Chris Hope, from GBN, made the point that the “Rose Garden” did not have many roses in it. Only one rose bush, apparently – it was an invented name by someone relatively recently for whatever reason. Quite likely that the cameras used had wide angle lenses on to make it look larger than it is, as well. And he didn’t have the opportunity to ask anything.
He wasn’t selected to ask anything. This is why nobody asked any serious questions, Starmer invited only tame journalsits to speak.
Wow— they named it after the White House Rose Garden where US Presidents often give speeches to the media. It’s the same kind of unnecessary imitation of the US Supreme Court, when the British Law Lords were abolished and replaced by a newly-invented British Supreme Court, which has been busily practicing “Judicial Overreach” ever since then, just like its much older American counterpart.
There was definitely a pile of manure at the podium
Great article- thanks!
I’m thinking that comrade 2T S will be ‘protected’ from the hitherto normal rigours of robust public questioning. For political reasons of course. That said, I seriously doubt his personal ability or capacity to think on his feet.. I’m not precisely sure who said it but I think that as far as his substance goes ‘there’s less to him than meets the eye’!.
His speeches will be carefully crafted by ‘others’ and the behavioural insights language is easy to spot as is the ‘pre framing’.
Of course, the ludicrous ‘we’ve discovered that things are far worse than we thought’ will be appropriated to exonerate themselves from accusations of being dishonest with the electorate.
Despicable!
The only promise Labour made in the election campaign was for ‘change’ that ‘the country is crying out for’. People wanted the Torees out and they got what they were looking for – for ‘change’. Virtually no politics was discussed in the campaign and evidently none was required by the small percentage of people who actually did vote for ‘change’.
Thus, all these things are ‘change’. Increases in taxes are ‘change’ (and, indeed, not small change). Redesignating illegal migrants as ‘irregulars’ is ‘change’. Carpeting the countryside and the seas with windmills is ‘change’. Ceasing to heat pensioners while hotel guests are cosseted is a sort of ‘change’ that appears to recognise the wisdom of investing in those with a longer potential as possible taxpayers.
The British state dealing with lawbreakers (if only those who challenge its authority and who do not have community leaders or elders to negotiate with) with arrests and custodial sentences rather than with cautions and suspended sentences is ‘change’. While removing the instant ‘justice’ from shoplifters is an altogether different sort of change. A new treaty with Germany to help ‘working people’ is ‘change’ (though it must always be borne in mind that what Sir K means by ‘working people’ are those without savings).
Also nobody asked about a countrywide rollout of the 20mph when it is unpopular here in Wales. But as we know, consultations are part of the new fascism and sidestep ‘the people’. The modern ‘consultation’ and its conclusion are already decided.
Stärmer missed his true calling – as a de-motivational speaker…
Political Deception – ‘The act of politicking involving lies, self-presentation, promises, fabrications, and so on, to distract and keep people waiting for solutions in a political system’
KS – The Master Deceiver
Because if they upset 2TK, that would be the last time they ever got invited to the Rose Garden. They like having their place at the table.
Well done to David Craig for listing the questions most of the British People would like journalists to ask Starmer.
His article made me wonder why the media has gone all quiet about the jail sentences being handed out to British Patriots protesting against the Mass Importation of Muslim Men of Military Age, and the resultant horrific criminal acts immigrants have committed. So I tried doing a Google search, and found that the latest 3 British Patriots have been sentenced to prison for shouting, gesturing and lunging at police, and one for throwing stones, and one for also using a bicycle to shield himself from a police dog biting him, leaving him in a wheelchair. No police or dogs were actually harmed by any of those sentenced to 2 years and 3 months, 2 years and a 6-year criminal behaviour order, and 1 year and 8 months. Their humiliation was complete when their lawyers assured the court that the defendants were “thoroughly ashamed” or “utterly disgusted” with themselves, perhaps after telling the defendants that would get them a lighter sentence. It did not.
Hull riot: Three more troublemakers jailed after ‘miasma of madness’ in city centre – Hull Live (hulldailymail.co.uk)
“Campbell [now in a wheelchair from police dog bites] had six daughters and four grandchildren, who were the “light of his life”. He was in Hull to buy a suit for a funeral at the time of the disorder.”
Riot suspects warned ‘we will arrest you’ as police storm homes in morning raids – Teesside Live (gazettelive.co.uk)
“never in my 30 years’ service have I seen anything like that in Middlesbrough. What the community had to put up with that day was completely unacceptable.”
*Note that the English word “community” in the UK now means people with “community leaders” whose ancestral homeland is in the Third World, usually vast in comparison to the British Isles, and with no ancestral, ethnic or cultural connection to the British Isles.
Meanwhile,
UK: Muslim groups urge government to engage with Muslim Council of Britain after riots | Middle East Eye
“The declaration, issued by the recently formed Islamophobia Action Group on Wednesday, was signed by 80 organisations including the Muslim Engagement and Development Initiative, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Council of Wales.
It called on the government to “engage directly with legitimate, democratically elected representatives of Muslim communities, particularly the Muslim Council of Britain, to ensure that Muslim voices are heard and addressed”.”
To its enormous credit,
“The government did not respond to communications from the Muslim Council of Britain throughout the recent far-right riots.”
Long may that continue…
Well they can foxtrot Oscar for a start.
But just watch 2tk will cave, of course he will.
Useless fucker that he is.
Well, that’s a good question.
As far as I can see, during the Covid crisis the entire mass media became extremely compliant and unquestioning (that’s why I started reading the DS!) and afterwards never really returned to normal business.
It’s like some essential life-force has gone out of the entire journalistic business. The articles have become lazy, patronizing, banal; it’s like they assume that their target audience has become at least a little bit stupid.
Coupled with that I think it’s probably a waste of time to ask Starmer any questions. The guy is an empty suit. A machine programmed to spew out some stock phrases. Seriously, there is noone there.
Excellent piece as usual.
Still, looking on the bright side, his evident crookedness obvious even to normies must surely bring forward the day on which the worm will turn and we can kick these rascals out, and hopefully save something of the rather special even if not perfect country most of us were born and brought up in.
They don’t have any choice. Same in America when Kamala was annointed. Immediately the message was this is the person you need to support no matter what and of course the masses clap like seals. Just like they loved Johnson and Cameron and Blair. It is presented as the only option and your average joe stuffing his face with a Greggs sausage roll goes yep that’s the only option now leave me alone to enjoy my nasty pasty. You can’t do anything about these tendencies as lamentable as they are. It is a mucky business trying to turn that ship around.
I won’t hear a bad word said about the legendary and much revered Greggsy’s sausage roll, mind. All in moderation, of course, like all things. Anyways, won’t be long til I’m once again ”sittin’ in a sleazy snack bar suckin’ sickly sausage rolls” as I ”run for home, run as fast as I can, woooaaaah running, man. Running for home.”
To be fair, it was mostly the same set of journalists who were notable for their inability to ask the obvious questions during Covid, lockdowns and ‘cakegate’. Unlikely that any of them are going to win a Pulitzer, I’d wager…
There is so little money sloshing about now they will do anything to earm a few quid. Yes they are still scumbags but the world is full of such people. The fact that they call themselves journalists doesn’t mean that it is wise to listen to them. I understand the attraction of pretending to be naive but this is the wrong time to do it. We live in nasty cutthroat times. If you aren’t up to that challenge then reality will cut your throat.
Why?
Because most of them either support Labour, or want to keep their jobs and know that asking “difficult questions” would put them at risk …… or both.
REAL journalism no longer exists in the MSM.
It still persists to some degree on GB News and Talk Radio, but the alternative media, podcasters and citizen journalists are the only places where you’ll find something approaching real journalism.
And they’ll not be allowed within 100 metres of Keir Stalin.
Also TNT Radio News is doing a great job. Watch out for ex-BBC Journalist Jemma Cooper – she is excellent.
Great article. It occurred to me yesterday that the media can literally let politicians get away with murder.
Stalin wanted to show the World’s media how successful communism was and feted people like US journalist Durante to come to Moscow where he showcased happy citizens and a working society. Durante even went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for this.
While all the time Stalin was literally murdering millions all of which was kept hidden from the media. The film ‘Mr Jones’ is the story of one journalist who would not accept what he was told and travelled to Ukraine to see the horrific result of Stalin’s policies.
I suspect that today’s journalists are not only like Durante – who accepted what he was told, but are wilfully turning a blind eye to the obvious harms that the uni-party have inflicted on this country and refuse to report on anything coming near them or, God forbid, anything outside the official narrative.
I suspect that this winter stories of pensioners who have died as a direct result of no winter fuel payments will suffer the same fate as stories of the 1000s who lost their lives because of a certain medical procedure.
They are all guilty and complicit in this…. I despair of real truth ever getting out while people continue to get their news from these sycophantic liars.
Because they’re socialists
Thi swas an Orchestrated Circus…. So called journalists are just as good as Richard Burton’s Staff in 1984! Shameful…. what has happened to England!!
Same as the ‘journos’ who never questioned Nicola Sturgeon..too busy fawning over her while she trotted out the most awful lockdown restrictions on us Scots. Or droning on about Independence and the people of Scotland. A complete and shameless liar aided and abetted by gutless TV & Newspaper ‘investigative journalists’.