To John, re: “I greatly admire your restraint, and the dignified way in which you have conducted yourself.”
Well, Richard hardly needs to do otherwise given the number of people in “NUJ Left” who have been commenting online and on this forum on his behalf without declaring their membership of that hard-left faction, let alone the others who have done likewise as cheerleaders for the interests of “NUJ Left”.
“NUJ Left” has anointed Richard Simcox as some sort of prince regent, who they expected to be ushered into becoming editor of the
Journalist. And “NUJ Left” has been able to rely on plenty of other people to do the “dirty work” of smearing critics of that faction who challenge – possibly even halted – its attempted hijack of the NUJ.
In any event, I am unaware of any "bile and hypocrisy that has been spewed" towards Richard by anyone in this election campaign. I have, however, highlighted the fact that "NUJ Left" fielded him as a candidate without his declaring that fact in his election material sent to NUJ members with the ballot paper. And after all this time, we have still had no proper answer to why he made that serious omission.
And Richard, after all, is hardly the first example of an “NUJ Left” candidate who failed to declare that fact in election material sent to the voters. I note, for example, that Tom Davies has failed to answer this point on another thread:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/journalists/forum/index.php/topic,2004.15.html. And these two are not lone examples.
Re: “politician's phrases like ‘so far as I know‘.” Congratulations. Thanks to your loose wording, John, you have managed to defame seven of the eight candidates in this election. Copy writing is plainly not your strength. Do you remember anything you read in McNae’s?
I will help you out. You did not mean to defame six of seven candidates, but only me. Although a casual reader of your post would not realise it, I was the one who said: “So far as I know, the vast majority of journalists who have publicly endorsed my campaign are, as I have said, NUJ members, with the exception of Jon Snow and two others who had been active at chapel level.”
Your allegation that this was a “politician’s phrase” is made without any evidence. (Again, try re-reading McNae’s for some basics on this.) The reason you have no evidence is simple: it is false. It is another smear, something of a speciality for those associated with "NUJ Left".
You attempt to distract attention from one candidate’s failure to declare his affiliation not only to a political group, but to one that organises within the NUJ, by referring to candidates’ failure to specify whether endorsers are NUJ members.
There plainly is no equivalence. In any event, your call for candidates to declare whether endorsers are NUJ members is ridiculous. And the following case shows why.
One of my endorsers made a point of the fact that he is a long-time NUJ member. He chose to do so because it was directly relevant to an observation that he was making about “NUJ Left”.
This endorser also made a comment on the NUJ website online. I am aware of the fact that journalists who have publicly endorsed me are coming under the classic “NUJ Left” treatment, including smears and bullying pressure to withdraw their public support. Indeed, someone from “NUJ Left” working as a staff member at the NUJ – not the usual moderator – interfered with this endorser’s comment on the NUJ site, and added: “I am not an NUJ member.”
This additional sentence was made to appear as if the commenter had written it. That was, of course, outrageous. Furthermore, the addition was untrue. Indeed, it was a smear because this particular commenter had publicly claimed to be a long-standing NUJ member: it defamed him by making him appear to be a liar.
The usual moderator later changed that added sentence to appear as a comment not included by the original commenter, saying in brackets that the commenter “is not an NUJ member.” This at least did not appear to be written by the commenter, but was still untrue. It was still a smear.
Why did the person from “NUJ Left” and, subsequently, the moderator think that the commenter was not an NUJ member? They had rifled through the NUJ membership database, and could not find his name there. That appeared to show that my endorser was not, contrary to his claim, an NUJ member. However, the reason his name did not appear in the membership database was because of an administrative cock-up at NUJ HQ, which had falsely ascribed his subs to somebody else. The additional sentence was duly removed from the comment on the NUJ site following complaints.
This demonstrates how it would be practically impossible for a candidate to verify whether an endorser was an NUJ member. First, supporters could, conceivably, say that they are members when they are not. Second, the membership database has proven to be unreliable. And even if a candidate were to check an endorser’s press card or membership card, that would be no guarantee against the possibility that s/he had stopped paying subs since receiving such cards. A candidate would have to require an endorser to produce bank statements to show NUJ subs being paid up to date. That shows how ridiculous your suggestion is.
Many of my endorsers are from outside London, where I am based. Therefore it would be even more impractical for a candidate such as me to verify whether some endorser is an NUJ member.
I therefore repeat what is the only honest response to the original question: “So far as I know, the vast majority of journalists who have publicly endorsed my campaign are, as I have said, NUJ members, with the exception of Jon Snow and two others who had been active at chapel level.”
Now, how about some proper answers from people in “NUJ Left” about real issues? For example, Richard Simcox has failed to answer (
http://www.journalism.co.uk/journalists/forum/index.php/topic,1990.0.html) how he could be independent if “NUJ Left” succeeds in its campaign to have him elected as editor of the
Journalist, given the aim of “NUJ Left” that I cited: “Maintaining regular and effective communication among all levels of the NUJ, including liaison between NUJ Left and NEC Left members, to ensure senior lay and elected left officials are accountable to NUJ Left.”
