Jump to content

Talk:Monday Club/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RFA

I have placed a Request for Arbitration concerning the recent activities on this page. [1] CJCurrie 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC).

  • An examination of this Talk Page shows that there would have been virtually no "activities on this page" without your deliberate intervention. For someone who states that he is concerned with Canadian politics you might like to explain to the arbitrators why you were so obsessed with the Monday Club, Lauder-Frost, and everyone ever connected with it/them. 213.122.99.60 11:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope this can all be seen in the light of a general improvement in the standard of the page. Charles Matthews 11:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the Arbitration requests (plural - I had made one before CJCurrie) he continues to make even more blatant re-edits which show absolutely his personal views. He deleted the Club's absolute refutation of David Rose's 'Observer' smear article, stating it was somehow 'vanity'! Incredible. So we are expected to leave the article's fundamental premise standing, with no clear rebuttal! If thats not bias I don't know what is. He is elsewhere attempting to alter facts about which he clearly has no knowledge.

Robert I 09:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like all concerned to concentrate here on the page content. Attacking other editors is not good practice, to put it mildly. Please discuss in terms of what and what should not appear on the page. I think a good job is done here already in writing a thorough, informative piece. Charles Matthews 11:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted again because of CJCurrie and friend HOTR's deliberate vandalisation and demonisation. It does not matter what your opinions are. The sources are quoted. If a newspaper has defamed someone in a massive article the right of reply should be shown for balance. 213.122.67.71 07:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Stanley Baldwin, three times Prime Minister of Great Britain, on the Press (from On England): "Direct falsehood, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speakers' meaning by publishing things out of context, suppression, - what the proprietors of these papers are aiming at is power, but power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages." Robert I 13:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The philosopher Professor Roger Scruton (The Meaning of Conservatism) said "While it is a long-standing principle of British law that the formentation of hatred is a serious criminal offence, it is not clear that illiberal sentiments have to be forms of hatred, nor that they should be treated in the high-handed way that is calculated to make them become so. On the contrary, they are sentiments which seem to arise inevitably from social consciousness: they involve natural prejudice and a desire for the company of one's own kind. That is hardly sufficient grounds to condemn them as 'racist', or to invoke against them those frivilous fulminations which have been aptly described as 'death camp chic'."

Quotes to elighten the readers of these articles. Robert I 14:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

  • I have reverted to the previous version because it was sensible, more balanced. The opening paragraph should not be instant demonisation. The story of the Club should be there to read and people shoul dbe able to make up their own minds without being led towards a conclusion by demonisers. Robert I 15:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Monday Club's description of itself, published on the front page of its Aims brochure is not "contestable", except by you and your friend, as you spend day in and day out trying to dig up more dirt from scumbag journalists. It is your opinion which is NPOV, not the official statements of an organisation. 81.131.114.213 16:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph

To call the Daily Telegraph formerly conservative is of course POV (as well as laughable) and cannot stand here. Charles Matthews 12:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The former editor, Charles Moore, is a self-confessed libertarian. Examine the Daily Telegraph published before the Hollinger group took it over and the Telegraph today. You will see that it has become liberal, populist, even sensational, in its articles. Pop stars etc adorn even the front page. They have even had articles by prominent socialist politicians. This would never have happened before Hollinger bought it out. The general view in Britain is that the Telegraph ceased to be a conservative newspaper at least a decade ago. Certainly there is little trace of it today. That is, unless you are moving the goalposts so that conservatism has today a different meaning as compared to 15 or 20 years ago. The Daily Mail is by far more conservative than the Telegraph. 213.122.45.227 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"The general view in Britain is that the Telegraph ceased to be a conservative newspaper at least a decade ago."

Citation please? Can you show us where this "general view" has been expressed?Homey 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example taken today from a poster on the Conservative Democratic Alliance's website forums, under the PROGCONS thread:

"Did anyone read the unbelievable rubbish by Matthew d'Ancona in today's Telegraph?

D'Ancona believes that everyone in Britain is inspired by Hugh Grant's "Notting Hill" films - and subscribes to a warm-hearted "generous" vision of "effortless, non-elitist" wealth, "racial diversity" and a vision of the "possibilities of modernity". The Telegraph's political columnist crowns it all by saying that the "informality" and niceness of all this has set the stage for a David Cameron victory - that Hugh Grant's and Cameron's Notting Hill has captured the mood of the nation! He also says that this contrasts with the "pessimism and snobbery" of the reactionary Right.

It all made strange and disturbing reading, not least because of the fact that the rest of the paper was full of stories about the EU budget surrender, nicotine patches for 12-year-olds, murders, and superbugs killing people in hospital.

Still, as long as d'Ancona, Hugh Grant and Cameron are happy - that's everything!"

What does that tell you? 81.131.111.145 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't tell me anything. Can you cite an actual published source rather than a blog or chat room?Homey 17:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Conservative Democratic Alliance article here begins:
The Conservative Democratic Alliance is a strongly right-wing United Kingdom pressure group which considers the Conservative Party to have swung overtly to the left in recent years in its attempts to modernise itself. It was formed by disaffected members of the Conservative Monday Club, another pressure group, over the way in which the Club should have responded to the Conservative Party's very public severing of 'links' with the Club in 2001, due to the Club's alleged racism. The conservative Daily Telegraph newspaper has described the CDA as "a hardline offshoot of the Monday Club" (Daily Telegraph, 24 August 2004).
So the admiration is mutual. Charles Matthews 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Telegraph's stock of journalists is taken from the general pool in London. Journalists move from one newspaper to another, and since the advent of multi-national owneship of the Times and the Daily Telegraph they have both lost their previous political raison detré. The Times was once the estabnlishment and generally quite conservative newspaper. They are now quite liberal. The Telegraph is not far behind. I think the comment above on today's Telegraph is apt. Its not a question of whether or not the CDA is "hardline" its a question of whether the remarks are fair comment.

What would be very important in all these discussions is if someone could say what is the difference between right-wing, extrem right-wing, hard right-wing, "hardline", etc. I suggest that when referring to right-wing conservatives it merely means that they are on the right of a party which has progressivly but decisively moved left over the last 15 years or more years. Theos concerned tend to be fairly ordinary everyday people with normal jobs and families. These are therefore demonising comments made generally by those on the left, unless they are referring to the BNP and loony outfits which are well and truly outside of "mainstream" politics. That said the BNP has had almost a million ovtes in the last two major elections here. Are all those who voted for them "hard-left" or "extremists"? Herein lies the dilemma and that is why over-the-top descriptions of groups and individuals should be applied with caution. In every poll that has been taken over the past two decades, journalists and MPs have appeared 9 and 10 out of 10 in people's views of the least honest and popular people. 81.131.46.46 16:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, Wikipedia articles are not written from a viewpoint somewhere out in the political ultraviolet. We call BNP far-right (I assume you didn't actually mean hard-left there); that's calling a spade a spade. Your point on the Telegraph journalists has no great validity; editorial policy is set by the editor. I was very interested to read what Max Hastings had to say about all that in his recent book. Generalized insults applied to MPs - where does that get you, besides off-topic. I will have nothing to do with 'demonisation' in the article, since it is a violation of policy here to do more than document things, and make a fair presentation. That being said, if you want to present a case about the Telegraph, there is a place to do so (The Daily Telegraph). Charles Matthews 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with what has been said about the Telegraph. Hastings is a liberal-conservative. Some of the articles today in the London Evening Standard which he edits give a fuller picture. Gone are principles of old. Its just 'print something to sell the papers' that matters now. Sensationalism and sensationalist language is all-important.

There has been general demonisation of the Monday Club on this page and whilst Charles Matthews has approached it with a more level-headed approach it remains biased. In the opening paragraph the Club's statement in its published "Aims" should be given prominence before anything else. Newspaper journalists views should be in chronological order in the page. The one thing to be said about the Monday Club which appears not to have been grasped is that the Club remained totally wedded to Toryism, while the Conservative Party became liberalised. As the papers (possibly the Daily Mail is an exception) long ago liberalised, it is natural for insulting smears of "far-right" to be published, particularly in left-wing organs such as the Guardian and the Independent. But flagging such smears of thousands of decent people and many MPs up on Wikipedia as 'established fact' seems to me to be insulting and very opinionated. Robert I 09:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we deal with the 'demonisation', rather than the prominence question? I think the Telegraph issue is a sidetrack. If anything on the page is actually unfair to the Monday Club - I mean factually inaccurate, too selective in what is quoted, or in a tone that is not encyclopedic, then I would like to address those points, first and foremost. Any such distortions would reflect badly on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 10:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My argument has been, I feel, consistant. No encyclopaedia commences with opinion and demonisations taken from a newspaper. Any such article should commence with the basic description of the organisation itself, preferably taken from the group's published objects/aims. The article should then be split up in to sections: objects, hierarchy and administrators, publications, functions/meetings, committees, and activities of the club and its officers, etc. Full details as possible on the Club's activities gives a thorough view. If possible everything under those or similar headings should be in chronological order. If journalists have attacked the Club at various times, which is quite normal in politics, then those attacks should be placed in chronological order, where possible in relation to the event the paper is commenting upon. What has been happening is the article has been re-written in a standard left-wing demonisation format which more-or-less highlights the attacks, and places everything else in an 'also' category. The Club was, for instance, famously known by Harold Wilson's comment that it was "the guardian of the Tory conscience". CJCurrie re-edited that to say Wilson was being "sarcastic" but there is no evidence to that effect. Wilson was just stating a fact, that the Club was robustly Tory in outlook.

If an article is to be fairly neutral the reader must, after going through the article, be able to make up his/her own mind about the organisation and its activities. They may, of course, decide that in their opinion it is not conservative, but in some way extreme, but to lead them deliberately into that decision by 'prompts' is wrong. Robert I 14:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Some indication of how far the Conservative Party have moved to the left was given on last night's BBCTV news, when Tony Blair accused the party of "simply copying New Labour's policies". Robert I 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you haven't really answered my question in a specific way. On prominence, on structure, reasonable people can disagree. On the other hand, where an article really cuts across the grain of WP's policies, all reasonable people should agree that that is wrong. The one issue I see might be sorted out, while the page is locked, is this: you are really saying that the Monday Club has consistent policies. Well, that is not so hard to believe of a pressure group. Electoral politics is a different matter. Therefore I see no reason why some comment on that should not be in the article. But not as 'Wikipedia opinion': it needs the support of someone, preferably a political scientist rather than a journalist, with a quote to the effect. Charles Matthews 14:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not certain where we are now, Charles. I had hope that my explanation of the situation vis-a-viz the article was fairly accurate. The Monday Club, to the best of my knowledge, has never changed tack on any of its policies/philosophies. I don't quite understand the question about electoral policies. I am not sure the Club has ever addressed them. Robert I 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My objection was not to the statement that the Monday Club has been consistent in its politics (indeed I added the adjective "long-standing" to describe their anti-immigration policy) - it's with the placement of that statement in the article as a rebuttal to the Conservative Party's suspension of them. To my mind that's something you would see in an argumentative essay, not in an encyclopedia article. Homey 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not at all. This is not an "argumentative essay" it is resumé of the Club and its activities. If you are deliberately intent upon including a statement or comment which shows that organisation or an individual in a bad light there should be some qualification made to it. Otherwise it is like a kangaroo court. The Conservative Party could not "suspend" the Monday Club from anything because the Club was entirely independent of them. Ths was a party media stunt. That should be stated somewhere, otherwise the citation is false. Surely a reader is entitled to ask how it was that suddenly, in 2001, the party suddenly found they didn't like the Monday Club's anti-immigration policies, when those policies had never changed for 40 years? That needed to be stated. Robert I 18:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You can do that by explaining further what the 'links' were, that were suspended. Or by giving a better explanation of the actual relationship. Certainly comment on the IDS/Davis decision is valid, but in this article? You can't have it both ways, though. Charles Matthews 19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

The Monday Club was an independent pressure group established by card-carrying conservatives, including many MPs and Peers, who sought through their influence, public meetings, publicity, publications etc., to bring pressure upon the Conservative Party to stick to traditional Toryism. They were never part of the Conservative Party although members were expected to belong to the party or have some affiliation to it. That is why the meeting with the Conservative Party: David Davis, and Julian Lewis, was a massive propaganda exercise to publicly say that the party had moved to the 'centre ground' and were distancing themselves from Club policies. But they could not 'sever' anything because the Club was independent. In my view the Club hierarchy should not have even agreed to go to such a meeting. They should have suspected something and known that a Press Statement would be issued. But presumably they looked on the optimistic side and thought they had something to gain. Their mistake. Robert I 21:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Nothing here for almost 2 weeks. We'll try unprotection. If problems continue, let us know at RfP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Winds of Change

It would seem that all that needs to be said here is that:

"The club was formed as a reaction to Harold Macmillan's 'Winds of Change' speech".

All the following should be on the appropriate page, unless whoever put it here is trying to make some sort of blatant apartheid statement:

"made at Cape Town, South Africa, in which Macmillan stated that the "winds of change are blowing through this continent and whether we like it or not this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept this fact and our national policies must take account of it." The speech was seen to herald the Macmillan government's opposition to apartheid[1] and its acceptance of decolonisation in Africa, and elsewhere."

The Club found the Winds of Change speech as the last straw for Toryism, rather than a singular reason for its establishment. Was the speech not made in response to a United Nations major statement on decolonisation? 86.129.73.230 22:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a little duplication now. I personally wouldn't mind if there was a little less. Charles Matthews 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The speech is recognised as addressing both decolonization and apartheid. That's why it was made in Cape Town. Also, given the Monday Club's history of supporting white minority regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa there's no reason to believe that both elements of the speech were seen as offensive by the founders. It's only now that apartheid is universally held as abhorrent that, in retrospect, Monday Club apologists try to downplay or even deny this element of the Winds of Change speech. Homey 13:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the point on the Monday Club's history of supporting white minority regimes be better made by documenting exactly that, than by implication, though? Put that in the MC article and the generalities in the WoC article. My take. Charles Matthews 14:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

The Monday Club supported European governments in Southern Africa because they were part of our colonial legacy and they (and a large proportion of the British people, if the demos were anything to go by) also felt that Britain had a duty first and foremost to its kith and kin abroad. It also saw, correctly, that the Soviets were intent on getting a foothold in Africa and that via black majority rule (especially through the South African Communist Party-dominated ANC, that here was a real problem. "White minority regime" is a very NPOV left-wing phrase and just because it has become fashionable (via the media) to use it does not make it right or accurate. It is essentially a term designed to demonise. Unfortunately so many of these Wikipedia contributors/detractors write from a 1990s - 21st century distant and (in HOTR's case, very left-wing) perspective and probably without having been around at the time (except as babies). Robert I 09:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I already know the answer, but is it your contention that "European government" in an NPOV term to describe the apartheid-era South African administration? CJCurrie 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

To the best of my knowledge, until the 1990s there had never been any other type of government in South Africa other than that by the Europeans. When did its official title become "white minority regime"? Apartheid was a rather late policy of that government and I would argue that deliberately branding a government by a policy is extemely non-neutral. It would be akin to constantly referring to the 'Class War Labour government' here. Our great constitutional historian, Sir David Lindsay Keir, refers to "the government of masses of non-European subjects" which presumably indicates that the government is 'European'. (See The Constitutional History of Modern Britain, 1485-1951, London, 1955, p.449) My view is that calling the government of South Africa the "apartheid regime" etc., is politicising and branding what was the established government of the day. Robert I 09:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny that - I thought the Afrikaans-speakers made a point of being, well, African. In that they settleed the Cape of Good Hope a good while ago. Perhaps 'regime' is loaded, but apartheid was self-identification, no. Charles Matthews 14:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

But it was just a policy of the government was it not? In adopting that policy (which was in de facto operation long before the Second World War anyway) they did not change their name from the Government of South Africa (which they had always been) to "the apartheid regime". This is surely newspaper langauge? A lot of Afrikaners see themselves as Africans, yes, but do the blacks? 81.131.144.60 20:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

"Apartheid regime" is standard left-wing speak. 86.141.58.77 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be better put as National Party (South Africa) government, in some cases, certainly. Charles Matthews 09:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The governmnet of South Africa of that era is known around the world for its implementation of apartheid. That was its distinguishing charecteristic, not the fact that it was controlled by the National Party. After the end of apartheid, the National Party continued for many years as a political party, but had renounced apartheid. Removing "the apartheid regime" reduces the value of the article for the reader. The reason that the CMC's support of the South African government at the time was controversial was not because the NP was in power, but that it was maintaining a policy of white minority rule (apartheid) that was deeply offensive to most people.

As far as the bizarre question about whether or not the blacks ssee themselves as Africans, note the names of their mass organizations, the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress. Ground Zero | t 12:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Removing "the apartheid regime" reduces the value of the article for the reader."

  • What kind of new-speak is this? A little Orwellian I would say. You permit your political opinions to overflow into all this;

"white minority rule (apartheid) [that] was deeply offensive to most people." Well, so was communism. Probably moreso. My retort is "so what". Again you are permitting your personal emotions to overflow into the articles. One more thing: there had always been what you term "white minority rule" in South Africa. Your addition of "(apartheid)" to qualify that is incorrect. Moreover, a great many of the laws associated with apartheid were actually in place before World War II, and so pre-date what is generally regarded as the apartheid era. Its very important to try and keep you personal passions out of Wikipedia. 86.141.174.116 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that communism was/is also deeply offensive to most people. You, or someone else, have/has a couple of times referred to the ANC as "communist dominated", which it was not. The SACP was a member of the ANC, but did not dominate it. I find it interesting that you accuse me of adding my personal passions to WIkipedia, when you (I assume, and correct me if I am wrong) have been doing the same thing with respect to the ANC. What I mean by "adding value" is that it helps the reader to understand why the National Party connection was unusual/controversial at that time. The National Party was a pariah to most organizations because of its policy of apartheid. Obviously, the CMC did not agree with the mainstream view of apartheid. Removing the reference to apratheid may leave a reader who is unfamiliar with South African histroy wondering why it is significant that the CMC supported the policies of the governing party of another country. I stand corrected the white minority rule and apartheid are not the same thing. Clearly, white minority rule was only one element of apartheid. Ground Zero | t 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you think you may have proved or assumed, I am not Robert Isherwood. I live 430 miles from him. 213.122.42.7 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You may care to outline the "vandalism" which has taken place, for everyone's benefit. 81.131.19.195 08:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to review the ArbComm decision regarding Robert I and the anon 81 and 213 posters. Homey 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Banning

I edited here today. What was wrong with the additional information? Why has that meant another ban here? Is everyone who ever had anything to do with the Monday Club now banned? Is not anonymous editing one of the strengths of Wikipedia? 86.141.173.190 23:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

This ban is a bit like blocking out all British Telecom users, as the first numbers (81, 86, whatever) of their ISPs will all be the same. Hundreds of thousands of people, if not even millions. Given the membership of the Monday Club many may want to add something here. So the action seems pretty drastic.86.141.173.42 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd support what has been said in those two paras. There is a problem here which has not been properly dealt with. Also, what is actually wrong with the edits that were made?Sussexman 16:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned elsewhere that there is a viable compromise: anonymous users can recommend corrections or additions here on the discussion board, and these can be integrated into the main text by established users (if appropriate). I see there is currently some discussion on whether or not semi-protection was appropriate for this page, and will offer no opinion on the matter at the present time.

Incidentally, I suspect that "86.141" is someone other than Gregory Lauder-Frost or Robert Isherwood. CJCurrie 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate for me to speculate as to your identity? CJCurrie 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose there is no harm in speculating. But as I'm not GLF or Isherwood, nor GLF's daughter (who was so young she couldn't have any of this knowledge of political activities anyway), I think you may be hard pressed at identification. 86.141.58.94 23:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It may violate Wikipedia's principles of decorum and civility to guess your identity outright, but in light of your assertion that there's "no harm in speculating", I'm willing to say this much:
  • (i) I believe you've had a long-standing partnership with Mr. Lauder-Frost,
  • (ii) I believe this partnership is confirmed in public-domain sources, and
  • (iii) I believe you are the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Given the number of people who worked with GLF in the several political arenas, plus his wide circle of friends, I can see this guessing game going on forever. Sussexman 16:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I didn't pick up on this thread Mr Currie. I think it's probably best if you keep guessing. If it helps, I'm a male and younger than GLF by over a decade. 86.129.80.74 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought. I have a pretty good idea of your identity, but I'd prefer an ironclad guarantee that you won't claim "invasion of privacy" or some related legal or netiquette violation if I guess it outright. CJCurrie 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the objection here?

I've looked very carefully at the edits I made to the MC article, basically tidying up a rather messy section, putting things in proper order, adding another newspaper reference, and for the life of me I cannot see what the objection could be to them or why Mr Currie reverted them. Have I missed something obvious? Sussexman 14:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The chairman, David Story, lost an almost unanimous vote of no confidence on 17 January 1991. Storey then embarked upon a "disinformation campaign" about his opponents in the Club which led to an article appearing in the London Evening Standard on January 28, and another the next day in The Guardian, reporting that three senior club figures had resigned, including Sir George Gardiner (a close personal friend of Storey), and Julian Amery, and that the Club "was becoming more extreme and no longer enjoyed their full support". Former chairman, Sam Swerling, one of those who voted for 'no confidence' in Storey, wrote a vigorous rebuttal of these claims in a long letter published in the London Evening Standard on 30 January 1991.

Following internal Club investigations, in addition to enquiries with journalists, David Storey's membership was terminated by the Club's Executive Council on 11 February, on the grounds that "he has engaged in behaviour prejudiced to the best interests, reputation, objects, and other members of the Monday Club; by abusing his position as Chairman in encouraging members to leave the Monday Club and to join a new political group". [cf. Club's Minutes].

Notwithstanding that, on 24 February 1991, The Observer ran another lengthy article entitled, Far Right takes over the Monday Club, stating that a number of senior members had tendered their resignations to protest the Club's takeover by "extreme right-wingers" associated with the Western Goals Institute. Marc Gordon, director of the libertarian International Freedom Foundation, was cited in the same article stating that the Club's shift to the right, "moved the extremists from the outer fringe to deep penetration of the Tory Party, giving them a platform of which previously they could only dream".

This isn't even close to being NPOV. There is no evidence that Story embarked on a "disinformation campaign" (the fact that his rivals in the Club later censured him proves nothing on this front), and the edit impugns false motive to The Observer. There was some valid information in the last edit, but the wording left a lot to be desired. CJCurrie 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to embark upon any edit wars, but on this occasion you deleted the entire bottom half of the MC article. (Possibly you didn't realise that). The majority of what you quote above was already in the article. All I did was move it around chronologically, and add the detail from a previous chairman's letter to the newspapers, which chairman was not in the Western Goals Institute and had been a MC member since the 1960s. So that in itself contradicts the Guardian/Observer article. The other details are in the published and widely circulated Club Minutes, but I see someone has already cited them. So I am really wondering what your objection is now as I am not really making any new substantive statements. The article is supposed to be an accurate reflection of the Club's history. Given the crisis that David Story manufactured the explanation is needed. Otherwise the Guardian/Observer stories go unchallenged. That is surely wrong and unfairly maligns others? You say there was no evidence against Storey, but two published statements in the newspapers, one from Swerling and another from Lauder-Frost, plus the Club's minutes, and the obvious disinformation exercise, show otherwise. Sussexman 07:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Two points: it is not established that Sussexman is not an independent editor; as pointed out, there is no reliable source characterizing David Storey's activities as a "disinformation campaign". Fred Bauder 19:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the first point means. I am not an independent individual?

CJCurrie seems to think you are Robert I. Fred Bauder 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that I've made any explicit statement to this effect -- although it does seem curious that Sussexman surfaced just after Robert I was banned, and their interests and writing styles are oddly similar. Who can say what conclusions readers may choose to draw?
I was actually speculating on the identity of a different contributor in the previous section: an anonymous poster whom I suspect did not forge a Conservative Party membership card in 2001, and did not wear a "Hang Nelson Mandela" t-shirt in 1986. CJCurrie 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Robert but have found the saga of passing interest. I am sorry if I became active at the wrong time or if several of us use similar grammar. That may exile quite a number of posters.

May I return to the only issue I am concerned with here, the reversion of my edits dealing with the late David Storey's expulsion from the Monday Club.

The London Evening Standard carried a letter from a solicitor member of the Monday Club's Executive, Sam Swerling, putting the record straight. In this letter he refers expressly to a "disinformation campaign", and to (the late) David Storey's activities. As Swerling had been a member since the 1960s, and a former chairman, and had never been a member of any other group, one would have thought that such a letter would carry very considerable weight as a "reliable source". His letter, although written before the newspapers in the Guardian stable published their damaging articles, also contradicts them, as does Lauder-Frost's subsequent letter to The Observer, whose motives in any case are blatant. Had there not been a disinformation campaign, where, then, did the press and a few MC members get their stories from?

(The late) David Storey was found 'guilty' of the disinformation campaign by a 22 member Executive and his membership of the Monday Club was terminated as a result. This was released in a Press Statement and a letter to the members, a copy of which I received.

What, then, is the objection to carrying a balanced report of this period? Sussexman 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Letters to the editor don't carry quite the weight of a newspaper report, but a newspaper report based on information provided by someone carrying on a disinformation campaign wouldn't seem to be worth much either. I think it comes down to two rather unreliable sources based on information submitted by the participants in a political struggle. Fred Bauder 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sussexman has not demonstrated that the Observer's article was premised on information provided by someone carrying on a disinformation campaign. I believe said article should be given more weight than letters written by participants in the dispute. CJCurrie 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much time to repeat what I have already stated, which I believe to be quite clear. Where does Mr.Currie think the journalist obtained his ;information' from? The Observer article is a sensationalist bit of journalism with a very obvious intent to do as much damage as it could to the Monday Club. Anyone who cannot see that upon reading it must be politically blinkered. Everyone was appalled when it appeared. I have dug out my cuttings scrapbook to highlight a few falsehoods in the article:

(1) The Club had not been "taken over". The Executive Council in February 1991 consisted of very long-standing members, some of whom had been members for decades. They had all been elected in normal club annual elections in May 1989 and 1990 which, ironically, had been conducted by the Old Guard (refer: The Guardian 5th & 23rd May 1989 - Monday Club's Old Guard fends off leadership attack). Lord Sudeley, Lauder-Frost, and Michael McCone, were the only 3 members of a 22-strong Executive ("nearly all of them professional people", see letter, The Guardian, 31 January 1991) who were members of the Western Goals Institute. All three had been members of the Monday Club since the 1970s. The clear inference of the journalist that the WGI had a major role in this 'takeover' is groundless and farcical.

(2) Stuart Millson was not a member of the Executive and held no other officer position in the MC.

(3) The Observer's journalist states that the 'take-over' has been carried out by those described as having "close links with fascist and racist groups abroad". Apart from being libellous and a chronically biased statement (I'm sure Mr Currie must agree), a long letter from Lauder-Frost appeared in the City Limits magazine (30 August 1990), with the headline True Conservative Speaks, in which he says:- "The Monday Club has no connection whatsoever with fascist groups. We most certainly do not maintain 'amicable' relations with the BNP.....We are not affiliated in any way to Western Goals and neither Mark Mayall or Denis Walker are members of that group".

(4) Lord Masserene had retired from the Presidency "because of my age" (Mail on Sunday, 3 February 1991), so that was the reason Lord Sudeley became the new President. No other reason, as implied.

(5) Cedric Gunnery's paid position as Director was abolished because the Club could no longer afford to fund it, not an implied result of the 'takeover' in the same paragraph as the new President is mentioned, (See also aforementioned letter of Sam Swerling). Gunnery continued as (unpaid) Club Treasurer. The abolition of the salaried Director's post had been mooted for some time (see London Evening Standard, Londoner's Diary, 10 October 1990).

(6) Dr.Mark Mayall never at any time said that he "was happy for former members of fascist groups to be active in the Monday Club as long as they stayed within the law", (See Lauder-Frost's subsequent reply letter in The Observer).

These are the fundamental points of the article, the rest of it being hype and leftist speculation. Remove the above points and the article collapses. If Mr.Currie prefers to rely on The Observer journalist rather than the word of solicitor Sam Swerling, and the other letters to editors putting the record straight, then I would suggest it is blatant bias on his part.

The Monday Club article should be balanced and tell the truth. Mr.Currie constantly speaks about POV and bias but he at the same time refuses to permit the full story to be told. Such bias is unfair to the ordinary Club membership who are being presented by a left-wing journalist as in the van of extremism. Sussexman 12:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat that Sussexman has not demonstrated that the Observer's article was premised on information provided by someone carrying on a disinformation campaign, nor has he disproved the article's assertions in his previous comments. All of Sussexman's objections are points of debate; they do not conclusively refute the article's assertions of a WGI takeover of the Monday Club.

And who on earth claimed that Millson had an executive position in the first place? CJCurrie 03:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe Sussexman's account of internal club affairs, but there remains no credible published source. It is no different from me writing an incisive progress of the internal workings of BatMUD. I may be devastatingly accurate, but those who disagree with me have every right to cry "Foul, original research". Some things we just are not able to cover. Weren't these events well reported in some political journal? Fred Bauder 05:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one has yet written about this period of the Monday Club's history. I felt I had accurately shown, citing several letters and newspaper articles, that officers of the Club disputed both before and after The Observer article, its allegations. These published disputations are just as credible as an outside journalist deliberately attempting to damage the Club. If the journalist has not been fed disinformation then he must have made it up. Sussexman 06:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

While these issues may indeed be of serious interest to the historian, the article may just have to back off. That is, under the 'No original research' policy, Wikipedia is restricted to quoting other sources (which it should do, in fact, selectively but fairly). This I think is what Fred is saying. This article cannot settle matters that are not handled elsewhere. Which does not of course rule out that it can be more scrupulous in writing the matter up. Charles Matthews 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that no-one has actually read The Observer article, and then digested my comments and points, above. Had they done that they would not be saying what they are. Sussexman 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agenda

Sussexman's valid points are being deliberately ignored because CJCurrie clearly wants the Club to be portrayed in a negative light. The Observer article is written by someone not in the Club (as he is a known Marxist). He provides no evidence for his sensationalist story other than two or three members of the Club are also now members of Western Goals. His stupid assertions were clearly denied/refuted by leading members of the Club in several published letters & articles, members who had been in the Club for years. Their credibility as Executive Council members must surely rank above the personal cranky story of a Red journalist? In addition, the late unlamented David Storey was found to be engaged in a disinformation campaign and expelled from the Club. Of this there can be no dispute. Lightoftheworld 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but is there no article in the British political press which covers this? Fred Bauder 12:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero now blatantly alters what was said in parliament to something which was not said. Can these falsifcations of other people's statements be tolerated in any publication? 86.129.75.128 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Excuse me? Where did I do that? Today I reverted a part of one of your edits because it was POV. This was not a quotation of something said in Parliament, and I was only reverting. Was there some other change? I can assure that if I changed a direct quotation, it was inadvertent -- i.e., I did not notice that I was changing a direct quotation. But it wasn't in this article as far as I can tell. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotation itself can be checked but you are being ridiculous in your defence. You know full well that none of our Conservative MPs would have made a statement in the context in which you have deliberately presented it. This is falsification of history and fact. 81.131.76.207 13:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just about to say most of that myself. This is cited in Copping's book I think, but in any case Club MPs never used any other word for these murderers than terrorist. Ground Zero has deliberately tried to cloud the issue raised in parliament - that of terrorists based in other countries and crossing the internationally recognized borders to murder people. Difficult to see how they can legitimately be part of an internal "insurrection" (a nice smarmy word for armed rebellion against the established government of the day) when they are not even based in the country. In any case, the treatment of this episode in the House of Commons has now been falsified on this page. 86.129.65.37 09:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. I did not write the original passage. I only reverted to it, so your accusations of me falsifying information reveal your agenda of ad hominem attacks aimed at trying to keep me out of this article so that you can white-wash it to present the CMC as a mainstream organisation. It won't work.
  2. It is not a direct quote. It is a paraphrase.
  3. I have considered what you said, and agree that the original wording about insurrection was not clear. At the same time, your use of "terrorist is not neutral. "Terrorist" is an emotional word used to turn people against those to whom the label is applied. That is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. I have re-worded the passage to make it clearer in non-PV terms.
  4. Insurrection is not an incorrect word, although I have removed it in order to try to settle this debate. ZAPU and ZANU were organisations of black Rhodesian exiles using neighbouring countries to attack what they (and many others) saw as the illegitimate government of Rhodesia. They were not foreigners attacking Rhodesia. Ground Zero | t 15:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one cannot see that anyone is "trying to keep you out of this article" but there are concerns about your agenda, which you attempt to camouflage under the guise of neutrality. If your family were black and had all been murdered by other blacks who also mutilated their bodies how would you regard these "freedom fighters"? 81.131.67.216 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If that happened, I would not be able to write in a neutral matter about these people, whom I would see as terrorists. And if your family were black and had been murdered by an oppressive racist white regime, you would see ZANU and ZAPU as liberators and freedom fighters trying to overthrow a dictatorship. Of course, we know now that ZAPU replace the white dictatorship with a black one. But the point is that one person's terrorist is another's liberator. So let's settle on neutral language, which is I think want we have now. Your agenda to hide the CMC's links to extremist organisations and present it as "mainstream", by the way, is abundantly clear. Ground Zero | t 20:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Using phrases like "oppressive racist white regime" betrays utterly your political leanings. By the way, that description does not really fit the Rhodesian white governments, much lamented by the majority of the black population (you'd know that if you'd ever been there). You may not wish to give the Monday Club "mainstream" (whatever that really means) status, but alas you are wrong. Any organisation which has had almost 100 Conservative Party members of both Houses of parliament as members, as well as tens of thousands or ordinary members over 40 years is "mainstream" by British standards. How you must be filled with hate. Sussexman 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppressive? -- A small minority of white Rhodesians imposed a government that provided privileges to the white population against the wishes of the vast majority of the population. It used violence against the majority to maintain its position. That sounds like oppression to me. I don't know what that sounds like to you.

Racist? -- The structures of governemtn were set up to ensure that white people controlled the government, held all positions of authority, etc. Black people, who made up the mjority of the population, were amrginalised, and had no influence in decision-making. Sounds like the government made policy along the lines of race. I don't know what that sounds like to you.

White regime? -- Er, yes. It was government of a country with a large black majority that was run by white people.

Like most people, I believe that people should have the right to choose their own government based on universal adult suffrage. I know that there are people who think that democracy is a load of cobblers, and a self-appointed elite should impose their will through force of arms, but I htink that there are a small minority in most countries. I don't think that my position, which the large majority of people hold, is one based on hatred. Except, of course, hatred of tyranny and oppression and American reality television programmes.

Are the white governments really "much lamented by the majority of the black population"? Can you provide a source for that, or is that just your view? I have no doubt that Zimbabweans want a change from the Mugabe dictatorship, but I think it is far more likely that they want democracy, not a return to white dictatorship.

Is the CMC mainstream? There is no denying that the CMC used to have considerable influence in the Conservative Party. It was, however, "formally suspended" from the Conservative Party in 2001 because of its views on race relations, and now has fewer than 600 members, according to the article, so it does seem to be a fringe organisation now. Ground Zero | t 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your latter para thats all. The rest is hogwash. 81.131.46.61 09:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was in Harare in 1990 staying with a (black) High Court Judge. He was educated under Ian Smith's government and had a government bursary to furthe his education at university in South Africa. He told me that the majority of the population were quite happy under the old regime and that now everyone simply despairs. There is no significant evidence that the native population in Zimbabwe were, or felt, oppressed.

The "structures of government" you refer to were all set up by the civilizing Europeans who built the country into a fine place with cities, railways, etc. There were no "structures of government" before they came. So how do you "exclude" people from government when they were never in it in the first place? How do you afford them a condition which they never had nor experienced? Needless to say we can see for ourselves the result.

The most memorable moment of my trip was walking to the bank I happened to see Ian Smith leaving a store on the opposite side of the street. Several natives cheered him and almost all that I could see stopped and took their hats off to him, some waving them in the air. Yes, a hated oppressor, no doubt.

I met the old racist once. He came to speak in an Oxford Union debate. He was rightly heckled and abused both outside and inside the Chamber. Certainly, no-one took their hat off to him. Is he dead yet? --SandyDancer 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not get a copy of this book. You may find it enlightening: Democracy: The God That Failed, by Emeritus Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, containing a series of thirteen essays on the subject of democracy. Sussexman 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman: why bother responding? It is evident these people are students or Marxists (or both). 86.137.204.101 09:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree. You're going nowhere. I looked at the opposition and they appear to be in North America. Amazing. They know more about us than we do here? Incredible. 195.194.75.209 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, whenever I ask for evidence to support the arguments made here, I get little more than assertions and ad hominem attacks. Never anything verifiable. At least Sussexman has explained that he has formed his opinion on the basis of the opinions of a judge and seeing "several natives" cheer Ian Smith. Everyone forms opinions on the basis of personal experience, and I respect that Sussexman has done so, but I am sure that Sussexman would not expect that anyone else will be convinced of his position on the basis of his own personal experiences. The fact that I do not currently live in the UK does not mean that I should stand aside and allow a small group of CMC supporters write an article that describes only their favourable perspective on the organisation. There must be balance here.

See WP:NPOV. Ground Zero | t 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Now listen closely most of you apart from charles matthews have been spreading liableous lies and falsehoods about the club. I suggest that you all grow up and find something better to do with your sad miserable lives. Nobody reads this page apart from you lot, and the way some of you lot are going you will find yourselves identified. Its not hard to track people through IP addresses. We know who you are, its not hard to work out. anonymous posting by User:81.152.48.229 27 June 2006

Who the hell do you think you are? anonymous posting by User:86.132.202.227 29 June 2006

Ground Zero stand by this matter has now gone to the top. Prepare your self anonymous posting by User:81.219.52.58 20 September 2006

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monday_Club/Archive_2&oldid=1147986376"