Alex Wickham - Anatomy Of A Lie

Now that the good people at BuzzFeed News have made their decision, Zelo Street can reveal just what they have bought after they acquired the services of Alex “Billy Liar” Wickham, soon to be former teaboy to the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines at the Guido Fawkes blog. And nothing highlights Wickham’s dishonesty better than one story from the run-up to the election for the Greater Manchester Mayoralty.

Milk, no sugar, hold the smears

On March 14 last year, the Fawkes blog brought its readers “Leaked Burnham Draft Manifesto Reveals Made-Up Stories About Women”. This claim had not been put to the Burnham campaign beforehand; had the Fawkes rabble done so, the sound of laughter coming down the line might have made them stop and think.

Here’s what “News Editor” Wickham told his faithful followers. “Guido has obtained Andy Burnham’s draft manifesto for the Manchester mayoral election, which is set to be unveiled tomorrow. The section above is particularly moving, telling the tragic stories of a woman who found it difficult to find work and was forced to take up a zero-hours contract’, as well as another woman ‘who had her retirement plans ruined and has now lost her independence’. All very unfortunate.” Then The Great Guido went wrong.

Remember him?

“Just one problem: these stories are not real and the women do not exist. Despite the apparently personalised stories, there are no names in the draft text, instead the letters ‘XXX’ appear as Team Burnham try to find women who fit the gloomy narrative. Struggling to find case studies for their tales of woe?” That is one heck of a pack of lies.

The problem for Wickham was that the stories were real, and the women did indeed exist: had he checked, he might have found that out. But the witless teaboy had failed to factor in the way in which he had received that draft manifesto. Zelo Street can now reveal how the Fawkes blog came by the draft, and why it was redacted.

Andy Burnham and his team had put together a manifesto for his candidacy. They were also aware that, out of courtesy if for no other reason, a number of senior Labour figures from councils across Greater Manchester should have a sight of it.

But here a problem entered: Burnham’s candidacy was not universally popular with all of those senior figures. Moreover, his team knew that the content may be leaked.

And here's his pal - also now in disgrace

One figure they knew they could not trust was Rochdale Council leader Richard Farnell: the Labour establishment there had tried its damnedest to stop Burnham speaking to members and putting his case. Ivan Lewis and Tony Lloyd, the other two Labour hopefuls, were on the other hand welcomed in by Farnell and his pals.

What was also known was that, despite his suspension from the party, Rochdale’s then MP Simon Danczuk was still big pals with Farnell.

It was also well-known that Danczuk was a Fawkes informant.

So in order to protect the identities of those named in the manifesto’s case studies, their names and any personal details were redacted. The decision turned out to be a wise one.

Richard Farnell received his copy of the Burnham draft manifesto. He immediately passed it to Simon Danczuk. Danczuk in turn passed it to the Fawkes blog.

Andy Burnham - unaffected by Wickham's lies

And that is how The Great Guido came by the Burnham manifesto - but a copy that had been redacted. Wickham now had a choice: did he put his story to the Burnham campaign, or just make it up and go ahead anyway?

That goes to the heart of Alex Wickham’s character. When push comes to shove, it matters not a jot how well connected he is, or what a great pal and drinking mate he might be, but that his instinct is to talk well, and lie badly.

Wickham made a totally untrue assumption about why the draft Burnham manifesto had been redacted - and, hell’s teeth, one might have thought that anyone with a shred of journalistic nous would have factored in the route by which the Fawkes blog got the document, and that the Burnham team would know the risk of giving a copy to Farnell.

In any case, the Fawkes story, if anything, only served to make Burnham’s candidacy look the better bet when the reality of the redaction became known. The former minister had secured the Labour nomination on the first ballot; he was then duly elected.

So, BuzzFeed people, now you’ve made your choice, Zelo Street has turned a few of those cards face up. How many more in the deck are still to come?

BBC On The Back Foot

As I pointed out yesterday, the BBC’s second instance of working from Vote Leave spin - specifically its political editor Laura Kuenssberg getting her story from VL Principal Matthew Elliott - has raised eyebrows, even among other journalists. But the Corporation’s apparent tone-deafness did not stop there, and the resultant furore has dragged in at least two of its staff who may be having second thoughts about their interventions.

Laura Kuensberg ((c) Guardian)

After Jolyon Maugham mused “You have to wonder why the BBC is giving Vote Leave a platform to explain its cheating. And you have to wonder why the BBC chose the morning after an England World Cup fixture”, there was the most extraordinary intervention from the BBC’s Editor of live political programmes Rob Burley.

Burley, formerly Editor of The Andy Marr Show™, has built a deserved reputation for engaging with critics of the Corporation and reasoning with them, to illustrate that many of the more out-there accusations contain little real substance.

But his response to Maugham really wasn’t a good move. “Yet another stain-glassed window in the cathedral of conspiracy”. The kind of response that might have come from the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, although, admittedly, the latter would have been heavier on the mental health smears.

Stefan Stern attempted a gentle warning: “Given that we don't know how this story will end, wouldn't it be wiser to tone down the sarcasm a bit?”

Burley became defensive. “It's not about how the story ends, it's about increasingly nonsensical attacks on the BBC. Whatever happens in the story of Vote Leave etc. - a story we report fully and fairly - there won’t [be] a shred of evidence that the BBC [sought] to bury or deflect from [its] own story”. Nonsensical? Subjective, much?

Stern remained unimpressed. “I suspect you have colleagues who are very interested in how the story ends and are working on that right now. Charles Wheeler used to say that ‘balance’ was a poor lodestar. Evidence is what journalists should be pursuing”.

Burley feigned momentary outrage: “What are you inferring?” Stern was by this time out of the discussion, but Burley got his reply, if not what he might have wanted to hear.

Peter Jukes of Byline Media stepped in: “Stefan's too polite to respond, so I'll make my own inference. Your response to criticism is bluster and thin skinned performance art. But you're supposed to [be] defending journalism: I.e. Open minded investigations. Sceptical but not cynical or prejudging potential new evidence”. Quite.

In the meantime, the controversy had dragged in LBC host James O’Brien, who summed up the Beeb’s woes by referring back to the football. “Sports news in the style of the BBC's 'Vote Leave' coverage: England won the football last night but the Colombia manager insists that the referee miscounted the goals and refused to listen to his ‘opinions’”.

Also weighing in was the Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr, who might be thought to have as good a claim as any to be given a hearing. “The BBC's head of live political programmes responds” was her only comment on Burley’s snark. But she did have a further point.

While the BBC was taking its cue from Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave, there was very clear evidence of wrongdoing on that organisation’s part. “This was @shahmiruk & @darrengrimes_ days before the referendum. When they were supposed to be running the entirely separate & independent BeLeave campaign. Campaigning for @vote_leave”.

And such was the brouhaha that BBC stalwart Nick Robinson had now joined the melée, upbraiding O’Brien “What say you to this @mrjamesob? You complained about the top line of BBC News and simply got it wrong”. In this, he was supported by the head of BBC Westminster Katy Searle, who had passed adverse comment on the LBC man.

O’Brien was not for letting it rest: “You seem to be both asking & answering your own question again, Nick. My point, obviously, is that the BBC gave wholly undue prominence to Vote Leave’s denials & complaints - presumably as a condition of getting the ‘scoop’ from them in the first place”. Also, it was the second time VL had achieved this.

And when Robinson veered over the pedantry median in his claim that the “top line” was not what O’Brien had claimed, the response was as emphatic as it would have been embarrassing for The Great Man: “'A "top line" is the most interesting, newsworthy, exciting part of a story - and is also used to refer to the start of a news story featuring that angle.' (That's not just my opinion, Nick, it's from the BBC's 'teacher resources' for students of journalism.)” Ouch!

Meanwhile, just to show that the Leave side thought they had done rather better from this particular set of exchanges, Sophie Germain pointed out that two of Burley’s Tweets had been RTd by, of all people, Andy Wigmore. “Always heartening to have LeaveEU's Wigmore retweeting the editor of BBC's live political programming as a defence”.

Then Mark Haddon, referring back to two of Ms Cadwalladr’s stories which the Corporation did not see fit to feature with the same prominence as that presented to them by Vote Leave’s Elliott, asked “a question i've not yet seen answered with specifics: the decision to ignore this story by the BBC must have been taken repeatedly by different people in many different meetings. so... is there a policy in place? a climate of fear? and if so, driven by what / whom?” We’ll put that one to Rob Burley.

Oh, and to Katy Searle. And Nick Robinson. And maybe Lord Hall-Hall himself.

The BBC’s great strength is that it gets it right on 99% plus of occasions; its processes and internal discipline give it that resilience. Its problem nowadays is that in that small number of cases where it gets something wrong, the response can be bafflingly inadequate.

Perhaps it’s because there are so few of those occasions. But that does not excuse the sarcastic and dismissive exhibition that followed criticism of the Vote Leave story.

The public, generally, wants to be able to feel confident about what the BBC tells them. Good reason, then, for taking that public, and the response to their concerns, seriously.

Tommy Robinson - Now Leveson Is Smeared

The alleged appeal mounted on behalf of Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson, against the custodial sentence handed down for his second admitted Contempt of Court in the past 18 months, appears to have hit a snag. It isn’t happening, or at least, not when his supporters claimed it would. And the suspicion is gradually increasing that everything about this case is not as it seems.

Lennon pleaded guilty when he appeared in court in Leeds, as he did when he made his earlier appearance in Canterbury. So it seems highly unusual that the case would come to appeal. He admitted his guilt, and that was that. But it seems that it is the custodial sentence that is being appealed. And Rebel Media is on the case.

Ezra Levant

So we went from news of a “new #TommyRobinson legal DEFENCE FUND, authorized by Tommy's family, to pay for his appeal”, to “Tommy Robinson's lawyer lodges appeal, applies for bail”, and then “Thanks to you, we're crowdfunding a top legal team to represent #TommyRobinson, whose appeal will be heard JULY 10 by Lord Justice Leveson, the #UK's most senior criminal judge”. But then a problem entered.

As Mike Stuchbery pointed out, “.@TheRebelTV claims that 'Tommy Robinson' is having his appeal on the 10th. That's news to the RCJ. No Stephen Lennon for that date. The #FreeTommy lot have been conned”. There was, indeed no case featuring anyone called Lennon or Yaxley Lennon on the Appeal Court list. So now what?

Ezra Levant of Rebel Media has not told when the appeal will be held. But he has signalled the beginning of the blame game. “OUTRAGE: Tommy Robinson's appeal court date has been cancelled by the state. They say they need ‘more time’ to prepare, so Tommy can rot in jail longer. Tommy, by contrast, was given mere minutes to prepare his defence on May 25th” he told his followers yesterday.

He followed that with “To be clear: Tommy Robinson is still appealing his case. But the DATE of July 10 has been cancelled. The government excuse - they need more time - is pitiful, and manifestly false”. Levant knows more about the justice system than those administering the justice system. And then the blame shifted.

The target of the far-right is now Sir Brian Leveson, who Levant has claimed will hear Lennon’s appeal, but no-one has confirmed it. A site called Kipper Central has claimed “Lord Leveson gave an interview to the BBC Radio 4s Law In Action program on June 24th in which he used the case of Mr Robinson as an example of when posting material on the internet can lead to imprisonment due to contempt of court. This means, I would submit, that already, before the case has been heard and therefore before Lord Leveson has had all the facts of the case presented to him, that he has in fact predetermined the guilt of Mr Robinson and is therefore unable to impartially judge his appeal”.

This was, in turn, picked up by the screamingly batshit Voice of Europe site: “Lord Brian Leveson is the judge that was set to hear the appeal by Tommy on 10 July. He was on BBC 4s Law in Action program on 24 June where he discussed Tommy’s case, declaring him GUILTY before seeing any evidence or allowing him a fair trial”.

And UKIP Daily has gone totally gaga, claiming “So today, we discover that the Deep State is engaging in more machinations over Tommy Robinson, and is effectively determined to see him dead”. Most of this is uninformed speculation.

Yet it is being picked up by Lennon’s supporters and treated as if it were fact. We don’t know for sure of this appeal really exists. Nor is it certain who would hear it when it finally comes to the Appeal Court. Yet Ezra Levant is there whipping up the mob, aided and abetted by the batshit misinformation fringe.

The smear of Sir Brian Leveson is as needless and it is disgraceful. Levant and his pals should stick to factual information, but that is not what they are about. There is another gathering in support of Lennon on the 14th, and they need to stir up the faithful enough to get them out on to the streets of London once more.

This dishonest and dangerous rabble-rousing needs to stop. But those behind it aren’t sensible enough to do that. So it won’t stop. Until someone gets seriously hurt. Or worse.

Esther McVey - Pants On Fire

In news that will not surprise anyone on her native Merseyside, the alleged Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey, now ensconced in one of the country’s safest Tory seats, has been caught not only lying, but failing to communicate with the National Audit Office. She has thus far survived, but is not out of the woods yet.

Never fart into a tailwind

Amyas Morse of the NAO had to write to Ms McVey because she wouldn’t talk to him. The comments in his letter put his concerns directly. “I am now reluctantly writing to you to clarify the facts … Our report was fully agreed with senior officials in your department. It is based on the most accurate and up to date information from your department … it is odd that by Friday 15 June you feel able to say that the NAO ‘did not take into account the impact of our recent changes’”. And there was more.

“I’m also afraid your statement on 2 July, that the NAO was concerned that universal credit is currently rolling out too slowly and needs to continue at a faster rate, is also not correct. My recommendation makes clear that the department must ensure it is ready before it starts to transfer people over from previous benefits”.

He also took issue with Ms McVey’s claim that his report showed that Universal Credit was working: “The department has not measured how many claimants are having difficulties … 40% of them said they were experiencing financial difficulties and 25% said they couldn’t make an online claim”. One of those unimpressed with the McVey stance was Theresa May, who duly threw her under the bus she didn’t want to discuss with Jeremy Corbyn.

As the Guardian has reported, “Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, has been forced to apologise to parliament after making misleading statements about the government’s faltering welfare changes … The MP for Tatton’s statement followed the release of a damning letter from Sir Amyas Morse, who told the minister she had misinterpreted a report by the National Audit Office on universal credit to make it look as if the new welfare system was working well”. But there was a problem.

“She is expected to face further parliamentary scrutiny over the debacle after Frank Field, chair of the work and pensions committee, asked the Speaker, John Bercow, for an urgent question as early as Thursday … MPs will ask McVey why her apology failed to address Morse’s complaint that she had misinterpreted the report”. Oh, and one more thing.

“They are also expected to ask why McVey’s statement to parliament appeared to contradict the NAO’s insistence that the report was up to date”. And there will be no opportunity this time for her old pal Iain Duncan Cough to slag off the NAO in order to deflect from her shortcomings. Like that she should no longer be in post.

After all, paragraph 1.3.c of the Ministerial Code is unequivocal on the point: “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.

Esther McVey is secure for now. But there are limits to how much a minister can take the piss and remain in post. And she’s very likely to hit those limits very soon.

BBC Integrity UNDER FIRE

Many of those who have been prepared to cut the BBC and its correspondents a little slack over attacks on them from both left and right, and take each complaint against the Corporation strictly on its merits or lack thereof, are taking time out this morning to think long and hard about the latest apparent exhibition of less than totally impartial reporting.

Laura Kuenssberg ((c) Guardian)

The Electoral Commission has been investigating the behaviour of the Vote Leave campaign; Zelo Street regulars will know that Jolyon Maugham was first out of the blocks with the conclusion that Vote Leave had broken the law. But when the BBC ran the story the following week, political editor Laura Kuenssberg told that “Watchdog expected to find Vote Leave broke rules”. Not “law”, only “rules”. Nothing to see here, then.

Carole Cadwalladr of the Observer was unimpressed. “New from BBC: ‘Watchdog expected to find Vote Leave broke rules.’ And misleading from BBC. Because, they’re not ‘rules’ they’re ‘laws’. Let me help you here: ‘Watchdog expected to find Vote Leave broke LAW”. The Zelo Street observations concluded with “Did Laura Kuenssberg just take Vote Leave damage limitation spin and serve it up as if it were reality?”

Well, now we know, and it is not good news for the Beeb or Ms Kuenssberg. Under her by-line this morning we learn “The official Brexit campaign is expected to be found guilty of four charges of breaking electoral law, the BBC has been told … The draft of an investigation into Vote Leave concludes it broke spending limits and failed to comply with some of the rules … It also imposes fines as a result of its findings”.

And then comes the opportunity for Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave to spin for his supper. “But the group's former chief executive claimed the Electoral Commission had not followed due process … Matthew Elliott has submitted a 500-page dossier to the Electoral Commission rebutting the claims”. Ms Kuenssberg’s source is Vote Leave.

The adverse comment was not long in materialising, led by Ms Cadwalladr: “This isn’t the official report. We don’t know the sanction. & it was leaked & spun by Vote Leave who put it out after midnight, post-football. These are criminal offences & @BorisJohnson & @michaelgove are in the frame & really troubling they used state broadcaster to do this”.

DCMS Committee Chair Damian Collins noted that Vote Leave had shot themselves in the foot: “Clearly no issues now with Vote Leave discussing the Electoral Commission investigation before its report is published. This further undermines Dominic Cummings excuses for not appearing before @CommonsCMS to answer questions on data & campaign management”. And there was more. Much more.

Adam Ramsay of Open Democracy had also noticed the timing: “The BBC was given this story prematurely by Vote Leave, gave Vote Leave the bulk of the first few paras to spin their crimes away, then published it on the night of England’s football victory”. One Tweeter was unimpressed with this morning’s follow-up. “Looks as though VOTE LEAVE gave the report to @bbclaurak and got an extended interview to rebut the story in rerturn, and by extraordinary coincidence Michael Gove happens to be in the studio the same day”.

Michael Gove, you say? The same Michael Gove named by Ms Cadwalladr? The very same. Another observer had been listening: “and he repeatedly congratulated [Laura] for her ‘scoop’ !! Some real people & journalists been investigating this for ages, BBC just recycle other people's work & try to take credit”. Also at Open Democracy, Peter Geoghegan asked “Why is BBC allowing Vote Leave to spin this? Why is a senior BBC journalist reporting sections of a not yet published investigation rather than allowing Electoral Commission to publish in good faith? V concerning”.

The whistleblowers were equally unimpressed, with Shahmir Sanni concluding “Funny how the BBC shut down my allegations because they said they needed to wait for the EC report, but somehow give Vote Leave a platform to talk about those exact allegations without the actual report being released. Shameful”.

Chris Wylie, also noticing the football timing, added “Brexit is now a crime scene. Vote Leave cheated and they are trying to use BBC on the night of the football match to bury the fact that they had to commit crimes in order to 'win' the referendum. They hope no one notices that Brexit was won with fraud”. And there was yet more.

Richard Summers mused “This overspend and lying just is not mentioned in the news in any serious fashion. They should be shouting it from the hill tops”. And Jolyon Maugham asked that question once more: “You have to wonder why the BBC is giving Vote Leave a platform to explain its cheating. And you have to wonder why the BBC chose the morning after an England World Cup fixture”. It looks bad. Because it is bad.

First it was spun as mere rule breaking, when it was known it was lawbreaking. Now, Vote Leave has been allowed to get its version of events out there via the BBC unchallenged. We will no doubt see counter allegations suggesting that this is all some kind of grand conspiracy theory. It isn’t. And those concerns need to be taken seriously.

The BBC’s integrity is now in question. Smirking and shrugging ain’t going to cut it.

Alex Wickham - O’Mara Attack FAILS

As the media establishment collectively blinked in surprise at the vehemently adverse comment passed on its woeful lack of moral standards, after BuzzFeed UK appointed Alex “Billy Liar” Wickham to be its new senior political correspondent yesterday, those passing that adverse comment began to unearth Wickham’s dismal back catalogue. But it was not yet complete: there was the saga of Jared O’Mara to come.

Milk, no sugar, hold the smears

O’Mara pulled off one of the shocks of last year’s General Election, wresting Sheffield Hallam from former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and completing a Labour clean sweep in the Steel City. This seriously pissed off the local Lib Dems, who would prove instrumental in the campaign by the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog - led by Wickham - to get O’Mara unseated.

O’Mara’s digital past, going back around fifteen years, was unearthed and paraded before our free and fearless press, while the actions of Tory MP and party vice-chairman Ben Bradley, which happened rather less than 15 years ago and included some most unfortunate statements, were duly swept under the carpet.

Meanwhile, Wickham, as the Fawkes “news editor” (no, don’t laugh) was front and centre of a sustained campaign to get O’Mara. After the new MP’s digital past was unearthed, readers saw “Tories And Lib Dems Call On Labour To Suspend Whip From Jared”. Then came “Labour Suspend Whip From O’Mara”. The MP was declared a “Wrong ‘Un”.

Then Wickham began to overreach himself. The introduction of Sophie Evans, described as a “victim” of O’Mara, was part of this - she had had previous with the MP, but one look at her Twitter feed showed she was a seriously unreliable witness. The Fawkes rabble and their pals did manage to con the BBC into featuring her, though.

Jared O'Mara - now reinstated as a Labour MP

After that came the calls for O’Mara to resign, and then Wickham lost it completely. Sheffield Labour was going to discuss O’Mara’s future, and “Local Labour figures already have their eyes on Jared’s seat”. The Fawkes blog claimed dishonestly “O’Mara Has Not Helped A Single Constituent In Months”. Lying. That’s what BuzzFeed have bought into.

Wickham was not finished with making it up: soon after came “Local Labour Members Demand End To Jared Investigation So He Can Be Deselected”. No citation was given, because the Fawkes teaboy had invented the lot. Same with “Jared’s Local Labour Members Want Sheffield By-Election On May 3”. No citation once more.

Then came an actual true fact, and the point that Wickham gave away his one consistent source. “Lib Dems Fundraising For Sheffield Hallam By-Election”. Local Lib Dems were the main Fawkes source - along with Ms Evans. The rest was mostly invention.

Wickham claimed there was going to be a by-election. He claimed Labour members wanted one. He span a whole pack of lies about O’Mara’s conduct as an MP. So when O’Mara was reinstated yesterday with a formal warning, the Fawkes teaboy was bust.

That is what passes for “journalism” at the Fawkes blog. It is what earns its practitioner promotion. It is what earns its practitioner the plaudits of others in the media establishment. And it is why that establishment has a serious problem.