[The Weeping Angel]

I feel it's about time we started a thread on this self-satisfied poser.

[Abernathy]

I disagree. He's better ignored.

[Projective Unity]

Who is this guy? I see him pop up on the BBC from time to time supporting Corbyn but don't really know who he's representing.

[Abernathy]

He is a skidmark on the underpants crotch of public discourse. Not worth bothering about.

[mr angry manchester]

Never heard of him until just now. I will remain in ignorance of him happily

[youngian]

His Novaro site looked promising to begin with to give a platform to new ideas but its all been pretty thin gruel. Aaron and his gang stumble around like a drunk trying to find their way home. Their latest 21st radicalism is to return to being Tony Benn in the 1975 referendum. His ideas for a British exceptionalist autarky looked moth-eaten even back then.

[bluebellnutter]

He's basically Owen Jones without the principles, quality of argument, journalistic integrity and capacity for self-doubt.

[The Weeping Angel]

He's basically Owen Jones without the principles, quality of argument, journalistic integrity and capacity for self-doubt.

I haven't seen Jonesy demonstrate those over the last 18 months.

[bluebellnutter]

He's basically Owen Jones without the principles, quality of argument, journalistic integrity and capacity for self-doubt.

I haven't seen Jonesy demonstrate those over the last 18 months.

[The Weeping Angel]

It seems Bastani's PHD may not be all it seems.

http://www.jeremy-duns.com/blog/somedue ... ronbastani

Bastani is a public figure, and his credentials are worth scrutinising. Especially as it turns out that he is hiding something. On reading his PhD thesis, I found that he had committed several extremely serious breaches of ethics in it. The details are below, but in summary he deliberately concealed the prominence of his own role in the field he was researching. He:

Omitted key facts about the extent of his involvement in events he analysed;

Failed to discuss or cite multiple sources relevant to his research because they identified his true role;

Failed to discuss or cite any of his own articles that revealed his true role;

Failed to take into account that his activities shaped and disrupted the events he was analysing;

Failed to declare his very clear conflict of interest as a result of the above, because it would have invalidated the entire thesis.

I think these omissions and deceptions are an obvious breach of Royal Holloway’s regulations on academic misconduct, notably clause 2(f).

[The Weeping Angel]

He's trying to win Uncle Seamus's approval.

[visage]

I dont think his book is very good...

[bluebellnutter]

But does it turn into Tolstoy after page 205?

[cycloon]

Probs better than Tolstoy, who was a toff after all, etc etc.

[The Weeping Angel]

I dont think his book is very good...

It's even worse.