For all print & online journalism
:sunglasses: 41.7 % ❤ 8.3 % :grinning: 16.7 % 🙏 8.3 % :shit: 25 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#556780
LJB certainly has his fixations and doesn't always explain himself that well (and can be unpleasant to boot; not that any of that means he never has a point, or never introduces something of interest), but jesus, this shit is a) tiresome and b) deeply unpleasant. Just fucking ignore him if you're incapable of not poking him with a big stick.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#556784
visage wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:29 am
Yeah. I think he could post that 2+2=4 and people would still leap on him.
Cheers Visage nice to see I'm not Public Enemy One around here to everybody.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#556785
visage wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:23 am
I think the point that people are missing, perhaps deliberately, is that Jones isnt just a jobbing writer looking for work (though he undoubtedly is that).

He's a cheerleader for leftist solidarity, and has frequently called for sympathetic action against those he sees as being against that cause.

So when he then works for an outlet that has treated workers and unions poorly he gives the impression of hypocrisy.
Thank You someone who is willing to engage with what I've written rather than accuse me of things I'm not, make up lies about my personal life, deliberately accuse me of making grammar errors or just flat out abuse me.
By mr angry manchester
Membership Days Posts
#556788
Cycloon is correct on this. I tend to find LJB tediously obsesses about things which are of limited interest, but i don’t take any notice of it if it doesn’t concern me.

If you dont like him, or what he has to say, just pass on it and leave him alone. I am starting to dislike the need to pile into him which is becoming more frequent.

Let’s try to keep this a place where people are free to post and express opinions without incurring unpleasantness. I think that some of the criticism aimed at LJB/TWA tends towards sneering rather than constructive.

BTW, I don’t give one solitary flying fuck about Owen Jones
Schmee, Cyclist liked this
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#556811
I think LJB could do with having a lighter touch at times. But I was interested in the Private Eye link he posted here. As for Jones, I agree with Visage that he brings it on himself with his activist-journo intensity. Sure, you can always find something that's hypocritical about anybody with any kind of principles but Jones particularly opens himself up to iy.

On Jones, this has had a bit of attention.

Image

I'll try and live up to my own "light touch" prescription, but increasing taxes is actually "austerity", it's reducing demand. Ending austerity is something different. Taxes on the rich aren't anything like sufficient to deliver what Corbyn wants. I don't really want train companies nationalized and I don't want student fees ended. And I want research done on what difference to employment raising the minimum wage to a figure McDonnell pulled out of his arse makes.

I do want incomes raised now by tax credits and benefits unfrozen and restored to 2015 levels at least. Labour doesn't want that. I want petrol taxes to go up. I'm a right bastard centrist, me.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#556812
Thanks Tubbs what made me post that story was the way Jones casually dismissed the three writers when they told him what had happened. So he clearly knew what happened and yet he dismissed them them out of hand. Will he get called out for this? Will he hell.
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#556817
To play devil's applecart here for a mo, it does seem there's some kind of labour dispute, and thus quite possibly legal action involved here. Could that be a reason why Jones isn't engaging?

Come to that, is he maybe under some kind of contractual obligation?
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#556819
For all the bleating and whining of the Simpering Snowflake, one thing remains the same; the Eye is the scurrilous Eye.

This is a classic of the genre. You take two events, lace them together, and because there is nothing that will stand up in court and legal have been all over it with a fine gin tumbler, you add speculation and innuendo in the form of questions and what you'll be defended as fair comment.

They then allow others to run with their own interpretations which, in turn, expose them to accusations of causing reputational damage or even libel. If you call someone a massive hypocrite and their livelihood rests upon trust, you could find that you're going to need to stand that up.

"Ian Hislop told me", is not a defence.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#556820
Kreuzberger wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:09 pm
For all the bleating and whining of the Simpering Snowflake, one thing remains the same; the Eye is the scurrilous Eye.

This is a classic of the genre. You take two events, lace them together, and because there is nothing that will stand up in court and legal have been all over it with a fine gin tumbler, you add speculation and innuendo in the form of questions and what you'll be defended as fair comment.

They then allow others to run with their own interpretations which, in turn, expose them to accusations of causing reputational damage or even libel. If you call someone a massive hypocrite and their livelihood rests upon trust, you could find that you're going to need to stand that up.

"Ian Hislop told me", is not a defence.
So which parts are untrue then?
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#556837
Really? So how do you explain this then?




Dear Bhaskar,

So, it is 5pm, Saturday September 22, and the Tribune relaunch will soon be underway. I’m sorry I was not able to accept your invitation to attend, but …

Oh, sorry, that’s right … I wasn’t actually invited to attend.

In fact, I wasn’t even informed of the relaunch event; I found out about it because I’m a journalist, and I do that kind of thing. Let me mention a few things. Although the recent history of Tribune seems to have been swept under the carpet in the run up to the relaunch, I would remind you that in fact Ian Hernon, George Osgerby and I were producing Tribune until January 2018. We had been doing so in the most straitened circumstances, ridiculously poorly paid, with almost no resources or backroom support, effectively without an editor for more than two years, and using contributors who were willing to offer their work with little or no reward. Whatever shortcomings you or others may consider the product to have had, we kept the publication going and attempted to maintain the Tribune tradition as best we could.

We were aware that Chris McLaughlin had made contact with you and that you had expressed interest in taking on Tribune. We were led to believe that you wanted ‘continuity’ and that you would ‘keep the team together’. When Owen Oyston pulled the plug, we were enthused by the prospect of Jacobin’s involvement and sought to facilitate the transfer of the title both by persuasion and by putting pressure on Oyston through our financial claim via the NUJ. We did so in the belief that we would continue to be involved in a reconfigured Tribune.

On the one occasion you spoke to me during this period you said you liked my contributions to Tribune and wanted me to write for the relaunched mag. You suggested Ian, George and I would be involved in the planning for it. That there would be a meeting or meetings in the run-up to the relaunch in which you wanted us to participate. However, you also told us about the fact that in order to buy the magazine, Oyston wanted you to pay the amounts we were claiming from him, and you suggested that this would be possible if we took 70 per cent of what we were owed. We accepted this compromise in the belief that we would continue to be involved in Tribune and believing the promise that there would be work for us on the relaunched publication.

After Ian, George and I received the payment from you of our 70 per cent of what was owed by Oyston we heard practically nothing more from you, nothing from Ronan Burtenshaw and nothing coherent from Chris McLaughlin, who you had retained in some capacity. Almost everything we have learned about the future of Tribune has come third hand or through public sources. No meetings materialised. We were not asked to participate in any planning, nor invited to contribute. We were not informed of Ronan Burtenshaw’s appointment as editor or what the editorial plans for Tribune were. It is almost as though, once we had been ‘paid off’, you had decided that we could comfortably be cast aside completely. Perhaps you suspected that if we had not received this false promise of involvement we would have been reluctant to accept that 70 per cent. To be honest, I suspect such suspicion would have been correct.

I did receive an email from you eventually, after my prompting, in which you said, ‘I appreciate your competence and your work keeping Tribune afloat and I do apologize for my lapses in the communication. But it is my hope to get you all involved with the project.’ No invitation to ‘get involved’ has ever been received, apart from a later message from Ronan, again after some prompting, in which we were vaguely invited to make ‘pitches’ for future issues. Not exactly what we had been led to believe, at the beginning of this process, would be our role.

I also noted in your email that the new Tribune would have an advisory board to offer ‘political and intellectual guidance’ — also clearly not something to which you believe we could contribute. So, I was effectively dumped once you had managed to acquire the magazine, and have, unfortunately, been unemployed since. I am not naïve. I understand that when a new proprietor takes over a publication, even a left-wing one, he/she may want a new direction and fresh blood. If you had said that from the beginning and not mislead us, you might have retained my support. What I object to, and what makes me very angry, is the dishonesty of the process in which you indulged and the disrespect you have shown myself and my colleagues.

Now, though, at least we have something solid to look at, and the contents list contains barely a single previous contributor to Tribune that I recognise. (And though I know you were sent the contributors’ details, I have not yet come across a single one who has been contacted by you.) It is ironic, in fact, that, apart from Mr McCluskey (and is he aware of how we have been treated?), the only familiar name on that contents list is the one who, despite being the nominal editor, contributed practically nothing of value to Tribune during the three and a half years I was working on it.

I wonder if, amidst no doubt stirring words this afternoon from usual suspects like Owen Jones, there will be any recognition of the efforts Ian, George and I made to keep Tribune going and facilitate Jacobin’s acquisition of it. Somehow I doubt it. So often on the left, principles of comradeship, solidarity, honesty and so on make fine rhetoric but are shamelessly abandoned when they become inconvenient. I am not surprised by the way you have treated Ian, George and I — I have had worse experiences, not least at Red Pepper — but it’s just as well that my capacity for disappointment in socalled ‘democratic socialists’ has not yet reached its limit.

Good luck.

-Mike Parker
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

Flybmi collapses, blaming Brexit uncertainty […]

Just when you think Yaxley-Lennon couldn’t b[…]

Jeremy Corbyn.

It doesn't but it can be a nuisance to Labour.

The Tories, Generally

Exclusive: Tory Party 'In Denial' Over Islamopho[…]