- Barmy
- Columnists
- Community News
- Did You Know?
- Entertainment
- General News
- Interviews
- Music
- Politics
- Reviews
- Sport
- Things to Make You Go Ooh!
- World News
The-Latest forces sacking of Mayor's 'race gaffe' aide
Submitted by Editor on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:08pm.
Politics
Marc Wadsworth - The-Latest - EXCLUSIVE
Fired: James McGrathIt was my genuine concern that new Mayor of London Boris Johnson might allow his closest policy-makers to quietly dump the race equality agenda that prompted me to find out for myself. I was put in touch with 'his master's voice' James McGrath, Johnson's Tory leadership-imposed political minder, who invited me for a coffee at City Hall. McGrath's insensitive and frankly arrogant comment that Black people should 'go home' if they didn't like his 'right-wing' boss running the multiracial capital was breathtaking.
Now McGrath has been sacked by Johnson. The Times phoned me to tell of his forced 'resignation'. It both shocked and saddened me that the seasoned political operator's hubris cost him his job.
I did not rush into print with a story straight after the extraordinary meeting with McGrath on May 20. Instead, of a megaphone monologue I attempted a private dialogue. But, for a month, despite reminders from me, I waited in vain for McGrath's promised response. I found his apparent contempt for the serious issues raised - both at the meeting and in a document I sent him afterwards at his request - very disrespectful.
Press Association told me that The-Latest.Com had made history as the first UK citizen journalism site to force the resignation of a public official. According to PA, bloggers in the US have been much more successful at this. PA said that our scoop was a fine example of an alternative website breaking news that the mainstream missed.
A senior news executive friend at the Mail on Sunday, who was annoyed that his editor declined to use the story when it was first posted on The-Latest, congratulated me on the scoop. He said I should pursue the point it seemed the race equality issue was being jettisoned by a City Hall Conservative administration that considered 'anti-racism' as 'left-wing'. Hence, Mayor Johnson's apparent decision to drop the theme from the annual Rise music festival next month.
Unreported, was the McGrath comment to me that City Hall's Tory rulers had 'no race policy', as they are obliged by law so to have. They wax lyrical about fighting crime and improving public transport but have a blind spot when it comes to the promotion of good relations between Black and white people in the most racially diverse city in the world.
Prof Patricia WilliamsEminent lawyer Patricia Williams, an American professor who made waves in the middle-class British circles in which Johnson moves with her insightful BBC Reith Lectures, said that 'specific legal remedies such as affirmative action, and the counter to those, which has been appeals to colour - blindness - not just colour-blindness as a social ideal but as a kind of literal mandate that seems to be requiring that you eliminate all reference to race even when you're trying to remediate the effects of racism. That's the paradox, it seems to me - that you can't talk about what it is that you're trying to remediate. Therefore you can't talk about it sensibly. It's like the image of the three monkeys, Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil. To me, that image represents the wrong kind of colour-blindness, because that's just plain blindness, rather than unself-consciousness about race or about the mark of colour'.
The-Latest 's scoop has been widely picked up by the new media and blogs. It is running on BBC News, Guardian Unlimited, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Daily Mirror, Times, Sun, Metro, Sky and many other websites. And The-Latest post bag has experienced a flood of missives, some of it nasty hate mail directed at me. As influential Guardian blogger Dave Hill said, the Tories and their allies have spent more energy attacking the journalist who broke the story rather than McGrath's slurs against Black people.
Just as alarmingly, the controversy has prompted the fascist British National Party to invite Boris Johnson into its ranks. The dramatic firing over with, Mayor Johnson must now match his declared commitment to multiculturalism with action, starting with the adoption of a 'one London' race equality policy and the hiring of credible senior officials to implement it.
http://www.the-latest.com/blacks-should-go-back-home-if-they-dont-like-mayor
http://www.the-latest.com/im-an-immigrant-too-mayors-aide-hits-back
delicious
digg
reddit
newsvine
furl
google
yahoo
technorati
icerocketSelective reading
Submitted by David Kendrick on Wed, 25/06/2008 - 12:32am.
I don't know McGrath and I know very little about him. I have not seem him quoted as saying that any voter should go home or go back to their country.All forms of bigotry are bad, whatever the creed or colour of those epsousing them, and should be fought. They should be fought intelligently.In my view, this was not "well done."
Double standards?
Submitted by David Kendrick on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 10:19pm.
Mr Wadsworth,McGrath's instant verbal response to a reasonable although provocative question might indicate an underlying racial prejudice.You have been reported as writing of Mcgrath's comment as "robust and as distant from being politically correct as his country."Your words, as reported, were written and therefore presumably considered.It is your right to be ignorant. I am bemused that someone who champions the campaign against racism can say something so prejudiced.You may loath me when you know me if you want, however, please don't blithely label me or my country. That is the essence of prejudice.David
Lies.
Submitted by Chantelle Osili on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 9:16pm.
McGrath does not in any way suggest that anybody should 'go home' or 'go back'. He is directly asked how he feels about Afro-Caribbean people leaving - so bear in mind, he was aleady presented with a specific ethnic minority, he did not choose that group of his own violition, and he was already told they would leave, so he did not suggest that course of action. He then said what amounts to 'let them do what they want if they are unhappy'.
How is this racist? And more importantly, how could it be presented, morally or legally, as, (and I quote) "Blacks should 'go back home if they don't like Mayor"? He in no way suggested this - it is a clear misrepresentation of what James said, changing his words and falsely attributing a racially imflammatory phrase - 'go home' - to him.
Ingnore what you want to hear what you want.
Submitted by Spangler on Wed, 25/06/2008 - 11:10pm.
Having ignored all the info regarding how it is a racist put down and the history of these people, you are free to believe as you do, and live with the consequences.
Those of us who know what was being said, can say 'live by the (s)word, die by the (S)word.
Your boy Lynton...
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 4:27pm.
Lynton Crosby: globetrotting, spreading dirty dog whistles
Narrogin WA, April 18 2005 - If you read what everyone should have read around the 2001 Tampa election, you would know Lynton Crosby reasonably well. After all, thanks to Crosby John Howard successfully scooped up his unlikely win at that election through applying a considerable degree of wedge politics, designed by his former advisor Lynton Crosby in his role as the Liberal Party's election campaign director.
Crosby employs a particular nasty brand of politics, and it seems his consultant strategy works: since January this year he's been pottering around in the UK, helping the Tories under Michael Howard (no relation to little Johnny down here in Australia) to improve his chances to steal government from Tony Blair's Labour, and soon he's off to New Zealand.
This morning we heard that after the UK election, to be held on May 5th, Crosby's off to New Zealand - that is, if we can't stop him. We wrote a letter to Helen Clarke, the Prime Minister of Kiwiland.
On this page, a line-up of the British and Australian press about Lynton Crosby's travels and meddling in UK politics. The media is not sparing him, but he does his grubby work in a climate that seems to be befitting his approach. In March this year I wrote in the script of the forum Don't Mention the Refugees: Globalisation? Well, sort-of - that is, globalisation of the politics of storing, locking up, warehousing, and banning of refugees and asylum seekers, and excluding them from the massive wealth of western countries. Below our press release is the report we received this week from New Zealand. It's followed by media reports from January through to April. And there's more to come. Project SafeCom Inc. "John Howard's former advisor Lynton Crosby, who currently acts as the campaign director for the British Tories, and who was the campaign director during the 2001 Tampa election and beyond, should be barred from entering New Zealand on character grounds," WA Refugee group Project SafeCom stated today. News is breaking in New Zealand (item below) that Mr Crosby will be employed by the NZ conservative party 'National' as a campaign consultant in that country's election after he finishes his role for Michael Howard's party after the May 5 UK election. Lynton Crosby has refined 'refugee wedge politics' and 'dog whistle politics' to such an extent that he hires himself out as a campaign director to conservative parties 'around the world' in order to improve their chances to win elections. Crosby is currently the campaign director for the British Tories under Michael Howard, while New Zealanders are said to have their next election around September this year. "Mr Crosby election tactics are deliberately designed to create a considerable degree of xenophobia and fear for 'refugee invasions', and his strategy consists of creating the most shameful and grubby tactics - spreading mis-information and uninformed but sensational opinion and debate - we have seen and experienced in Australia since the Tampa election in 2001, and we're now seeing the same phenomena developing from the conservatives in the UK," Project SafeCom spokesman Mr Smit said. "It is vitally important that the New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and her Immigration Minister Paul Swain discern his approach as an attempt to embed low gutter politics in New Zealand society. We would not wish the amount of division and animosity - divisions which are still tearing Australia apart in many ways - upon anyone, especially not on New Zealand, a country that may these days well carry, rather than Australia, the label of 'The Lucky Country' for asylum seekers." "New Zealand has an admirable record in terms of their refugee treatment, so much so, that they've been willing to take up the 'slack' for Australia, for example in accepting many Tampa refugees, while not exposing John Howard's scandalous post-Tampa politics in a generous employ of diplomacy." "Mr Crosby is not an honourable man, and his entry into New Zealand should be stopped on character grounds. Project SafeCom is currently developing communications with Prime Minister Helen Clark, Immigration Minister Paul Swain and his Associate Immigration Minister Damien O'Connor."
"Meanwhile, Howard's senior advisor Lynton Crosby is in the UK selling Australian-made refugee wedge-politics as an election platform to the threatened Tories, the Dutch announce a deportation of up to 26,000 refugees who have lived in the community for up to a decade with undecided outcomes, and in Italy's government the echo of 'shooting them out of the water' still reverberates through parliament while the European Union hopes to circumvent international law and tries to replicate Philip Ruddock's 'refugee warehousing' policy. Fortress Europe's success is built on the model introduced to the world community by Australia."
Block Lynton Crosby's visa for New Zealand, says refugee group
Media Release
Monday April 19 2005 9:00am WST
For immediate Release
No Embargoes
so called race gaffe aide
Submitted by parnell32 on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 2:30pm.
Everything today seems to be yet another version of the old race card even throw away remarks made by an Australian who has been, no doubt, at the receiving end of enough Aussie jokes. As a fellow antipodean I have had the words colonial bandied about and the way Ken Livingstone said the word "antipodean" one would have thought it was a swear word of the worst possible kind (one of the reasons I didn't vote for the man!). I do not cry racism everytime someone goes on about "us" people from "downunder" and the McGrath comment was nowhere as rude as some of the remarks and jokes people make about Australians and New Zealanders. As a New Zealander I get - after someone has yet again mistaken me for an Australian - sorry I know Aussies and Kiwis hate each other. Well we don't ,and we aren't as racist as many others are, so a remark made so dismissively is not a racist one it is a throw away line to merely dismiss the racism of others who see Boris Johnson as no Ken Livingstone with his so called anti racist vision.
Sorry but I am sure if Ken had lived next to partying Jamacians and not partying Australians he would have been calling them the Caribbean equivalent of antipodean with a nasty slur to it. and tarring them all with the same brush.
Please all of you stop being so paranoid no one gives a heck what colour anyone is, as far as us New Zealanders and Australians are concerned ,it is how you act that counts not the colour of your skin and if no one takes McGarth's remark as a dismissal of a stupid remark in the first place, one that was in itself inverted racism, then there is no hope for society in Britain.
I for one, as a New Zealander, stand beside McGrath as he did not intend a racial slur he was just trying to avoid having to chastise a reporter who had made a gaffe. It wasn't him who had made the gaffe but his interviewer who had insinuatedthat some black people might leave the UK if Mr Johnson became mayor. Did this not imply that some black people were racist then towards Boris Johnson or was the interviewer racist in his remarks? Sorry we can read what we like into all this but I would suggest that James McGrath was not being racist. I also suggest that not having a race policy is a good one as that implies, surely, that Boris Johnson and his team do not see a difference between those people that make up what is London today. Having a race policy creates differences surely.
As an Australian...
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 2:57pm.
I can say that I am well aware of the love hate relationship that Aus/NZ have for each other.
I am also aware of the VERY REAL racism that exists in Australia. Please, as a NZ'er, don't excuse the damage done by such Australians as Linton Crosby, and (by mistake?) his appointee Mr McGrath.
Remember that Australia IS STILL A NATION THAT HAS NOT RECOGNISED OFFICIALLY THE FACT THAT (BLACK) ABORIGINAL (or as they prefer to call themselves - THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS) EXISTED AT THE TIME THAT THIS CONTINENT WAS "CLAIMED" BY ANOTHER NATION.
"TERRA NULLIUS". Look it up.
All you guys who have watched movies about the 'mystical abo experience', about the 'deep spiritual nature of the great southern land', the christmas on bondi beach'; need to be clear of one thing.
AUSTRALIA IN 2008 HAS NOT OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED THE FACT THAT THEM BLACK BASTARDS WERE HERE AS STATED BY THE DECLARATION OF "TERRA NULLIUS" WHICH STILL STANDS TODAY.
And then we'll spam our brand of 'reasonable (but not racist) exclusion, to the UK.
Tell me about it.
Empty vessels
Submitted by David Kendrick on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 10:07pm.
I would expect that "they", the aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, do not routinely ferer to themselves "the original inhabitants". As strange as it may seem, every human is an individual with individual views.The doctrine of terra nullius is was introduced by white British using British law. Consequently your point is lost in the murk, unless you are suggesting only bad British white people came to Australia.Terra nullius is dead. I am not sure what you want. An "official" declaration carved into stone?Using all upper case letters is generally considered to be the written equivalent of shouting, Shouting makes a point of view neither more valid nor more persuasive.
"Pot calling Kettle, over"...
Submitted by Spangler on Thu, 26/06/2008 - 2:51am.
How lovely, and CONDESCENDING of you.
No they probably don't refer to themselves as "The Original Inhabitants", as I said, that's how I refer to them.
They actually don't refer to themselves as Aboriginies and Torres Straits Islanders either, unless speaking to people like you who are able to excuse with a flick of your pen the likes of Mr McGrath for using a very very well known racist put down here in Australia (Mr McGrath being an Australian as has been covered so many times that you have to make a conceited (no not a spelling error) effort to actually ignore it.
They refer to themselves as Koori's, Gunai, Murray etc. And yes, they probably would like it to be written in stone, that at the time their land was invaded and taken over to form what is now Australia, where ther are treated as thisd class citizens who are drunks and whingers who should 'just get over it..' , at that time, THEY ACTUALLY EXISTED.
Can't really tell THEM to leave (or go back to) where they came from if they don't like it now can you.
By the same token, you would leave the argument with a comment about capitals on the internet, doubtless smug that you have landed a killer blow.
Terra Nuilus IS NOT DEAD. It is EXTANT. It will be dead, when it is taken off the books. Until then, The Original Inhabitants of this Land, who commemorate "Invasion Day" when folks like McGrath celebrate "Australia Day", thank you for your grammatical attention to their history.
Now explain the grammatical correctness (as opposed to political correctness) of Mr McGraths freudian slip, and how he's just a very naughty boy who didn't know what he was saying. "It's all been taken out of context..." is the usual place to start.
What you expect, and what is so, and the difference therin, is your path to wisdom. Otherwise, you only have your expectations, and we have your uninformed opinion.
By any chance would your empty vessels be a pot and a kettle?
Not surprising
Submitted by David Kendrick on Fri, 27/06/2008 - 1:57am.
Spangler,I am pleased that you clarified that the name you used for "them" is one that you chose.There is only one Torres Strait. Mariners might be confused if there was more than one.I did not excuse McGrath. I did not use a pen. I doubt anyone "like" me would excuse prejudice, including racism. I have pointed out that Wadsworth's reporting of McGrath's comment exhibited prejudice.I am aware that McGrath is Australian. I am not so sure that he is an immigrant. I was not motivated by where he was born. I joined the site because I did not like prejudiced comments saying that Australia is racist.Our world would be in turmoil if everyone is sent to where "they came from". The transport would be very expensive and we might all be crowded into some very small areas.It is good to see that you are shouting less. However, my comment was not intended to be a blow of any kind. I thought rudeness was obvious. You could consider refraining from shouting.Let me know which "books" contain the term terra nullius. I shall look. If you mean legislation then I shall try to have the reference removed if it is used inappropriately. I have pots, a kettle and one heavy black pan. Does that count?I did notice that today's top article on this site is about Robert Mugabe. He frequently talks of differences in creeds and colour. He then has people arrested, beaten and killed. He does not spare anyone on the basis of their ethnicity or beliefs. A bad man is a bad man.
Sacking of Mayor's Gaffe Aid.
Submitted by thunderbird_ii_uk on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 2:16pm.
I felt had to register & respond - why should James McGrath have to be sacked for the comments he made?
Lets think about this for a few minutes - if you don't like your mobile phone company, you change supplier. If you get bad service in a supermarket, you go elsewhere. So, if a number of migr;ants - who chose to come here - become unhappy with London, Birmingham, or any other place they have chosen to live, then if they have the means, why should they not move to somewhere they will be happier? That is NOT racism - had he said he did not want them here because they were black, indian, or whatever, then THAT is racism.
I do not regard myself as racist, but I do beleive that, should they be unhappy, they should of course be welcome to come and go as they please. And James McGrath should not be sacked for merely stating they should be allowed to go.
Final note, Boris J was ELECTED, which would imply that the majority of his constituants are happy with his policies. Therefore, the group of poeple who are unhappy either did not vote, or are less than the majority who are happy. You cannot please all of the people all of the time, especially if they did not vote.
Ummm.., I think...
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 2:41pm.
therefore I say you haven't thought all the way through.
Cogito Ergo Sum saying that you have missed so obvious and fundamental a point that I have to fit as many words in here before I tell you what it is you've so obviously missed.
Please, Mr Thunderbird, explain to all those black, indian, or whatever, (I use no capitals as you did out of respect for your opinion of them people) who were born and bred in the UNITED KINGDOM exactly where they are supposed to go back to?
I'm not racist but... (look it up) where do you think these British Nationals should go to in their disgust at the ignorance of certain sections of the UK manipulatiaeae? Perhaps Australia?
Well no, we got rid of vermin politics of the Linton Crosby ilk in our last election. That's why (like rats off a sinking ship) something verminous has surfaced ( with an antipodean rattus stench) has surfaced in UK.
So Mr Thunderbird, please provide your reasoned argument for all "black, indian, or whatever, then THAT is racism." crowd to go somewhere else, despite the fact that they are BORN AND BRED BRITISH.
I've already put forward my
Submitted by HeartfeltDawn on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:37pm.
I've already put forward my opinions on the post over here (http://www.the-latest.com/blacks-should-go-back-home-if-they-dont-like-mayor). So here we have a new day and we have the continuation of distortions. "McGrath's insensitive and frankly arrogant comment that Black people should 'go home' if they didn't like his 'right-wing' boss running the multiracial capital was breathtaking." If we are to take the quotes in the original article as being published verbatim, McGrath didn't actually use these words. Mr Wadsworth, your own distortion of the situation is also quite breath-taking. It verges on flat-out lies. I have no issue with accusations that McGrath was lazy in his research over Mr Wadsworth and lazy in replying. Slate the man for that but attributing quotes to him that your own articles clearly show he didn't say is ridiculous and distracts enormously from the real issue, that of the racial equality issue being downgraded within London today. The original interview seems to have been a wasted opportunity to me. Mr Wadsworth was asked twice by McGrath what he wanted from Boris. Mr Wadsworth replies 'Nothing'. Yet in this current article, Mr Wadsworth makes a clear demand here: "The dramatic firing over with, Mayor Johnson must now match his declared commitment to multiculturalism with action, starting with the adoption of 'one London' race equality policy and the hiring of credible senior officials to implement it." Why not give that as an answer to McGrath in the first place? Why make a demand after the firing of the man? Many people have come here and mentioned the links to Lynton Crosby: why not question McGrath about his links to Crosby and the brand of Howard politics he is associated with? It seems like there was a chance to grill McGrath and it was missed in favour of a cheap soundbite that has been distorted. That's poor journalism in my book. I find it disheartening that it's felt that anyone who isn't in full agreement with the article is denounced as some kind of vile Tory swine. That in itself is divisive and is far too reminiscent of the George W. Bush approach of 'You're with us or against us', perhaps the keynote political speech over the last decade. I also find it interesting that Mr Wadsworth mention Dave Hill in this article and Hill makes absolutely no mention of the 'sunshine' debate. Even this article ends in a difficult manner: "Just as alarmingly, the controversy has prompted the fascist British National Party to invite Boris Johnson into its ranks." It's alarming because the BNP has jumped onto an issue to gain more coverage and visibility and can and almost certainly will use this saga for their own ends. They potentially have more to gain from McGrath's dismissal than the push for progress in racial equality will gain.
It seems to me...
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:07pm.
that Mr Wadsworth waited for a comment (unforthcoming) regarding comments by Mr McGrath DIRECTLY TO MR. WADSWORTH.
So where do the 'distortions' occur.
In Mr.Wadsworths recount of the factual circumstance of the publication of the article, or the REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION renowned of such people who wish to revise facts into a palatable gunk for consumption and regurgitation by the non-analytical ciohorts of ignorance that some would wish were the fabric of a great nation such as The United Kingdom .
After the interview, it is
Submitted by HeartfeltDawn on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:28pm.
After the interview, it is clear that McGrath failed to respond to Mr Wadsworth which is incredibly poor. I have stated that elsewhere and have no issue with that.
The distortions are clear. You have taken McGrath's words and used them to form your own conclusion (see 'In effect') and I do feel Mr Wadsworth has taken words and distorted them. There are different issues here. One issue is what McGrath actually said, on which I have been quite clear of my opinion. The second is McGrath's non-reply to Mr Wadsworth in the days/weeks post-interview. That is gloriously unprofessional and does verge on arrogance, for which Mr Wadsworth should rightly take him to task.
So please continue on your tract of labelling anyone who disagrees with you as being some kind of partisan historical revisionist with absolutely no capacity for analytical reasoning.
And of course..
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:39pm.
feel free to ignore my reasoned application of 'the real world' to label me as someone (who made comments with facts) is of the type to label you as whatever you want to distract me by labeling you as.
Let's get down to some basic facts.
McGrath made statements which reflect the racism which lies under the thin veneer of 'tolerance' in Australia.
He is employed by one of the most divisive tacticians in recent Australian Political history.
He f***ked up.
He got sacked.
Linton Crosby is his employer, and is the mastermind of such tactics, WELL KNOWN IN AUSTRALIA.
You think I'm having a go at your fundamental beliefs.
I don't know you.
I do know this BRAND of PoliticKs.
The boy made his bed.
What he said doesn't fly.
Politics ( no doubt someone will say it soon enough) isn't fair.
James can leave if he doesn't like it.
Fair enough?
The comments
Submitted by chris on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:18pm.
Chris Gaynor
Having kept a track on the comments sparked by this piece of investigative journalism, I can't believe what I'm hearing.
First of all, from what I have been taught - The interviewee should have known that he would be falling into a trap and should have done his research on who he was being interviewed by.
Secondly, he should have watched what he was saying. As far as I am concerned, if you are a public servant, you are fair game and open to this type of media wrestling.
One of my friends, another budding journalist, who I have just had a phone conversation with about it, said: " I bet He (Marc Wadsworth) was rubbing his hands with glee when he (the interviewee) came out with a quote like that."
This is what journalism is about. If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen (i.e. public eye!)
This website prides itself on its balanced arguments.... and prides itself on its neutrally politically diverse contributors.
I am a Tory supporter, but do not always NOD like a DOG when they do something that is wrong.
The problem with this world now - you are either considered a REBEL if you speak out against something, or, considered a lapdog if you suck up to someone's boots.
Some of the hysterical reaction to this scoop has shown there is no free dialogue - even though we claim to live in a freedom of speech society!
I agree in principle, but...
Submitted by senaro on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 7:31pm.
First time poster, long time reader.
I've read some of the comments posted and agree there is underlying emotion seeping through. It is easy, as I am sure you know, that when dealing with certain topics people lose their objectivity and subjectivity reigns - taking over and creating tension. There is no doubt that this kind of topic still arouses emotion, leading to both irrational and hysterical reactions.
Anyway, I digress.
Mr Wadsworth has obviously leaped at an opportunity presented to him. As Chief Political Adviser he should have seen it coming from a mile away. Even to reply 'no comment' during the month when Mr Wadsworth waited for a response would have been better than nothing. The Mayor also must be seen to act swiftly in regards to matters of his personal staff. Dismissal silences most critics.
I'm not inclined to say who is right or wrong. Portraying McGrath as a racist is probably a little harsh, the man is just inexperienced. However having said that, not replying to a journalist about a comment made by you is just plain dumb. Especially when it deals with racism.
What, EXACTLY, is your point here?
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:50pm.
Are you suggesting that a black journalist / activist who has, by all accounts, the support of senior conservative politicians against racism, was rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of asking the representative of a prominent politician what he thought the consequence of making a comment about black people being piccanninies and Africans with watermelon smiles being told that if those people don't like it they can 'go back to where they came from' (in effect) is in some way just another disaffected black jotter of rantings in a public forum, I shake my head in sadness.
You, my dear, are of the ilk of people of whom one imagines partakes of such comments as, "..if only those damned coloured people would only stop bringing up such distasteful subjects as racism, we civilised people might enjoy our tea without discomfort..." would pass by without a second - or first - thought, is no surprise.
Linton Crosby is thought and known by many in Australia as a divisive and racist tactician in Politics. That James McGrath is his appointee, and finds himself in such a place is no surprise to us. That some are foolish enough to think that the rest of us are foolish enough to believe the claptrap of 'dog-whistle' politics is a mistake or accident,, well my dear,
my granny was wondering if you had any tips on sucking eggs.
Spangler, quit with the
Submitted by HeartfeltDawn on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:57pm.
Spangler, quit with the insults. "...being told that if those people don't like it they can 'go back to where they came from' (in effect)" No! It's not 'in effect'. Quote McGrath correctly with “Well, let them go if they don’t like it here.” Crucify a man by what he says and does, not how you might interpret or sum up what he said. 'In effect' is a horrible get-out clause. I'd also suggest that an article on Lynton Crosby would be a superb thing to put up here. This site must be getting some serious hits right now so educating more people about the Howard brand of politics and McGrath's links to it would be an excellent and most pertinent thing to read here.
I'll repost an earlier post as I am not sure you saw this one.
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:13pm.
I have made several posts here, all factual, and all informed by direct experience. My invitation is that you read them, (all posted under "Spangler"), and then I'd be happy to respond to any criticism of the very real issues we in Australia dealt with before such people spammed themselves out of Australia into UK Politics.
Here is one, if you're serious, you'll check out the rest, AND check out the references.
I'm assuming you'll do that and not ignore that in order to make another post profligating a view for partisan purposes.
:>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let's not ignore the fact that in Australia, where our friend James comes from, there are people of the "I'm not rascist but..." school, for whom this stetement that has unwound the career of Mr McGrath is the oft used stand-by for "Well if you don't like it you can f*** off back to where you came from".
What makes this an untenable statement (apart from the obvious) is the fact that it is used freely on any person of the non-white anglo persuasion regardless of the fact that they may have been born in Australia.
Our friend James has demonstrated the "I'm not...etc" core of Australia that no one here wants to openly admit to, but what has been named here as the John Howard (our ex PM who was unceremoniously kicked out of his own seat - only the second sitting PM in Australia to lose their own seat - hurrayy!!) "DOG-WHISTLE" brand of politics, whereby you can make a statement that on the surface is mostly harmless, but is recognised and fully understood by your "Gang of similar Views".
The "if you don't like it.." statement is an oft used metaphorical punch in the face used against 'foriegners / outsiders' who have the gall to say things like "discrimination is wrong" .
That James has done so, may reflect his upbringing and background, and may demonstrate his belief that in certain circles, (The TORY PARTY?) this is an acceptable, if not promoted view.
James, if you don't like it...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Please calm down. I've
Submitted by HeartfeltDawn on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:23pm.
Please calm down. I've already said elsewhere that I am in full knowledge of the two affairs you mentioned in a previous posts. Howard was a vile politician and I have absolutely no desire for his style of politics to come into this country. Referring to me as some kind of partisan amuses me greatly, given my history as an immigrant in another country.
Also 'Heartfelt'...
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:55pm.
You must remember that this is a UK discussion, and I am posting from Australia, and have to make known and assume that most of you over there don't know all about the things we know about from here. Linton and his divisive cell of politics may not be as well known by your neighbours as you(obviously) and I are all too (unfortunately) aware.
Calm is good.
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:47pm.
I wasn't having a go at you I'm sure. Just not sure as to the issue you have with my(seriuos and considered) postings; as one who has a heartfelt and committed interest in both great nations of UK and Australia, for which I will defend the highest expressions of humanity which we hold dear.
Thnx.
Ignorance, racism, guilt ... what else?
Submitted by Natalie on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:02pm.
Rather than spending so much negative time and energy attacking the website for exposing the truth, James McGraths cohorts and sympathisers should try examining the reality of the story. The level of ignorance and hatred being directed towards the journalist and website is unfair, considering they are merely doing their job ie. reporting events, as they happen, that the mainstream media fail to report first. What the story has helped to unearth by the reactions I have read so far is very enlightening, but unfortunately not surprising. Objectively, The-Latest should be congratulated for their work and I hope they continue bringing news that is so often overlooked.
Oh but it's ok to lynch Marc Wadsworth?
Submitted by tearjerker on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 11:49am.
If Chantelle continues to spread her Tory bile about Marc Wadsworth and this sites attempts to expose racists in the Tory ranks then she leaves herself open to just criticism. Join the adult world Chantelle and stop being an apologist for the likes of McGrath.
Give Peace a chance.
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:18pm.
But let's give peace a chance by extending a rigorous olive branch.
I have asked Chantelle to respond to some serious bits of information which I have provided from Australia where Linton Crosby andMcGrath come from.
Lets find out.
BTW I have extensive experience and knowledge of both Australia and the UK.
Chantelle may be as mercenary as some think, but she may be as misguided as I hope she is in absence of relevant facts.
I'm hoping, (and I'm sure Mr Wadsworth would applaud the sentiment) that the latter is true.
Let's wait and see...
What have you been promised for your betrayal Chantelle?
Submitted by tearjerker on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 11:26am.
Chantelle Osili-you must have been promised a nice little position with your white Tory friends for you to be dishonouring your race in this way. Not sure which black people you've spoken to lately if any and in particular with regard to this issue. But let me inform you of something-the majority of black people and those not of colour who are far more enlightened than you, are elated with the stand that this website has taken.
What majority?
Submitted by xpat on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 2:19pm.
When will people like you stick to facts and argument instead of throwing insults at those expressing a different viewpoint and then claiming to speak for the majority? It is the old politician's trick and loses you all credibility as it does every other user of this canard. Your factless attack on Chantelle suggests you have no facts and no arguments.
Trying to smear the Tories won't work. Boris is Mayor for 4 years and Cameron will be Prime Minister in 2. That means we have to face up to a Tory future and decide how to live with it. All Wadsworth has achieved is making Boris look a tough guy. What a loser!
........
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 3:43pm.
......
Let's wait for Chantelle to research all the facts NOW at her disposal.
Or else I might have to ask you some serious questions which you will have to answer..
(correctly and with humour I'm sure...)
Let's spell it COLOUR...
.
Submitted by Chantelle Osili on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 11:54am.
I don't want to start an online argument with you 'tearjerker', but I hardly feel that standing up for an innocent person is "dishonouring my race". And no, I haven't been promised anything - I'm just standing up for what I believe in. I'm the first to speak up when real racism occurs, and I think Britain still has a long way to go before we can honestly call ourselves equal. But in this case, someone was asked what they thought about people leaving, and merely said 'let them leave'. What would you have preferred him to say? Suggest trapping people in the capital?
At no point did McGrath refer to race, and at no point did he even mention the phrase 'go home'. Therefore, I personally feel that the statement was not racist. If you think otherwise, fine. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Informed or apologist. Your Choice Chantelle.
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:12pm.
Chantelle, assuming you are / have done what you say, I am highly interested as to your response to my postings and the information contained therein.
I am highly interested as to your response to the requests that this forum looks at the information I pointed to regarding Siev X and children overboard, the Howard Govt and Linton Crosby (McGraths boss) and their view of how to run political campaigns.
I am interested to know if you as a self-declared black woman have the slightest issue with being refferred to as a 'piccanninie or african with a watermelon smile ' by your friends boss, and his response that (in effect) those people can f**k off back to where they came from if they don't like it.
If you want me (amongst others) to take your opinion seriously, please respond seriously to this (I hope) new information to you.
Otherwise, I'm afraid, YOU ARE A STOOGE.
Please confirm my confidence in your conscience.
.
Submitted by Chantelle Osili on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 6:10pm.
Spangler, I don't feel the need to prove myself to you, thankyou very much. If you want to declare me a stooge for having a different opinion to you, fine.
Lynton is not James. He is also, contrary to your claims, not his boss. You cannot use one person to judge another, and by doing so you demonstrate that you are now grasping at straws.
In addition, regarding the comment below:
"I am interested to know if you as a self-declared black woman have the slightest issue with being refferred to as a 'piccanninie or african with a watermelon smile ' by your friends boss, and his response that (in effect) those people can f**k off back to where they came from if they don't like it."
Please, credit me with some intelligence. I would not, suprising as it may seem, work for a racist. I am disappointed that in this, the age of information, people still choose to label and condemn others based on a single quote, removed from any context.
Please, do not be so ignorant. I do not wish to insult you, but if you had carefully read both the items you now claim are 'racist', you would see that they are not. Simple as that. You can make anyone sound racist if you crop and twist their words.
And please, please, carefully re-read Wadsworth's article. McGrath does not in any way suggest that anybody should 'go home' or 'go back'. He is directly asked how he feels about Afro-Caribbean people leaving - so bear in mind, he was aleady presented with a specific ethnic minority, he did not choose that group of his own violition, and he was already told they would leave, so he did not suggest that course of action. He then said what amounts to 'let them do what they want if they are unhappy'.
How is this racist? And more importantly, how could it be presented, morally or legally, as, (and I quote) "Blacks should 'go back home if they don't like Mayor"? He in no way suggested this - it is a clear misrepresentation of what James said, changing his words and falsely attributing a racially imflammatory phrase - 'go home' - to him.
Proof not required, mind made up.
Submitted by Spangler on Wed, 25/06/2008 - 11:21pm.
No you don't have to prove yourself to me. You don't have to anything.
The items you say I posted and should re-read to realise they are not racist, well Chantelle, I actually lived in Australia as these absolutely horrendous scandals unfolded over several months and an election while all that was going on, and the one thing that is clear was that the ONLY thing it was about was the RACE CARD, and how to split the population using fear of foreigners etc.
You can dissemble all you like. We here know these people and how 'charming' they can be.
I see that you have made up your mind, so good luck to you.
Let's not lynch Chantelle shall we?
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 11:35am.
Look, let's assume Chantelle is the real deal and not some forum posting stooge. Let's assume that Chantelle's experience with these people is real in her world. Let's assume that Chantelle has heard some things (and read here) that she didn't know about. Let's give Chantelle a dignified way out of that rats nest that she hoped was a promising career.
Let's.
The racism begins with the idea of homeland...
Submitted by winchester on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 10:51am.
...the real issue is why the Voice made the comment in the first place saying that older Caribbeans sense of homeland was back in the Caribbean...this is the racist statement that makes assumptions and generalisations about a particular black generation and where they belong. McGraph was simply answering following the line of argument the Voice was making. Wadsworth knew that he could fall into this "wordplay " trap. I commented on Wadsworths piece last night but my comment dissapeared! This is a really awful piece of journalism, the interviewer is more interested in himself than the interviewee and clearly intent on finding racism where there is none. This piece has lost a man his job. Yes, a few words cost a man his livelihood. Never mind all the good he may had done; I take it Wadsworth is perfect - from his article he would appear to see himself like this...a little bit of self-reflection does no harm. If journalists like Wadsworth want to stop generalisation and racist stereotypes about black people then they would do well to see the generalised and stereotyped assumptions made in their own writing (i.e. all white Australians because they come from Australia are inherently racist seemed to be what Wadsworth implied from his original piece). And older black generations sense of homeland is in the Caribbean, when it could be in Liverpool or Stratford in East London or anywhere else.
Racism actually begins with ignorance and fear of "the other..."
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 10:58am.
Please have a look at my post of
"In Australian Press.."
and
"The Liberals in Australia...".
Like Abu Ghraib, the only mistake (in the view of some..)is that the world found out about it.
Grow-up Chantelle
Submitted by tearjerker on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 10:41am.
Chantelle Osili's attempts at self-publicity on this site, clumsily disguised as an act of loyalty to someone she claims to have worked with are deplorable. This is made worse by her self-appointment as spokesperson for black people whilst lambasting the courageous Marc Wadsworth. Instead of spending her time ingratiating herself with the white hierarchy of the Tory party she would do better to educate herself on race and racism in the UK. Go away little girl and do some grown-up thinking on these very important issues.
.
Submitted by Chantelle Osili on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 11:01am.
Twisting a person's words to fit a political agenda is not courageous. I am not appointing myself as a "spokesperson for black people", but I am aware that the more members of the black community try to find racism where it does not exist, the harder it is to gain support and address the real issues facing us.
I will not sit back and say nothing as people like Marc Wadsworth lie and twist the truth; what is the point in equality if we lose our integrity?
Agreed.
Submitted by HeartfeltDawn on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:20pm.
Chantelle, I agree on the point of integrity. An organisation like the BNP lies and distorts with ease for their own gains. Copying that approach reduces anyone's argument.
Let's look up the meaning of the word "INTEGRITY".
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:36pm.
You might want to have a look at the "Siev X" Fiasco, and the related "Children Overboard" affair, both of which have more than circumstantial evidence as to the Howard Govt (Lintons pet project) knowledge and manipulation for that best of motives..."Winning the Election".
Google it!
When you've looked up "Siev X" and "Children Overboard"
and realise what people like Linton Crosby, and mayhaps his 'boy' McGrath are capable of perpetrating on the BRITISH Political Scene, then you can provide a
DEEPLY INFORMED COMMENT.
Until then, you are flapping your lips in the wind of ignorance.
I'm quite well aware of the
Submitted by HeartfeltDawn on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 12:50pm.
I'm quite well aware of the Siev X and Children Overboard situations. I thank you for your instant judgement that I know nothing and am ignorant.
If one side chooses to act like ruthless racist pigs with no integrity, that is no reason for the other side to lose their integrity. Rather like certain chaps in history who popularised non-violent protest in the face of extreme provocation, I would prefer to follow a higher standard for my own behaviours than others may choose.
I'll go to a point I made above. Why wasn't McGrath grilled by Wadsworth on his links to Crosby? If the sum output of the interview was one dubious soundbite then there has been an opportunity missed.
Your point being...
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 1:19pm.
That McGrath has been unfairly treated by Mr Wadsworth, or that Mr Wadsworth abrogated his duty in nailing Mr McGrath with regard to his activities linked to Mr Crosby, or that Mr McGrath being an appointed cohort of Mr Crosby GAVE THE GAME AWAY???!!!???
The boy made his his bed.
This was the basis of the question.
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 11:06am.
Chantelle, please consider this, it is an excerpt from an Australian Newspaper:
"During a wide-ranging conversation, Mar Wadsworth asked Mr McGrath if Mr Johnson's win and his earlier Spectator musings referring to blacks as "piccaninnies and Africans and their water melon smiles" - might spark an exodus of African and Caribbean immigrants from London.>>"
That, and the response of "...if they don't like it they can ..."
lead me to detect more than the slightest hint of agenda.
I am from Australia, where this kind of politics, and Linton Crosby, are WELL KNOWN.
I hope you progress well in your career, and don't come out at some point feeling 'used'.
"I'm not a rascist but..."
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 9:40am.
Let's not ignore the fact that in Australia, where our friend James comes from, there are people of the "I'm not rascist but..." school, for whom this stetement that has unwound the career of Mr McGrath is the oft used stand-by for "Well if you don't like it you can f*** off back to where you came from".
What makes this an untenable statement (apart from the obvious) is the fact that it is used freely on any person of the non-white anglo persuasion regardless of the fact that they may have been born in Australia.
Our friend James has demonstrated the "I'm not...etc" core of Australia that no one here wants to openly admit to, but what has been named here as the John Howard (our ex PM who was unceremoniously kicked out of his own seat - only the second sitting PM in Australia to lose their own seat - hurrayy!!) "DOG-WHISTLE" brand of politics, whereby you can make a statement that on the surface is mostly harmless, but is recognised and fully understood by your "Gang of similar Views".
The "if you don't like it.." statement is an oft used metaphorical punch in the face used against 'foriegners / outsiders' who have the gall to say things like "discrimination is wrong" .
That James has done so, may reflect his upbringing and background, and may demonstrate his belief that in certain circles, (The TORY PARTY?) this is an acceptable, if not promoted view.
James, if you don't like it...
I am at a loss as to
Submitted by twobells on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 10:21am.
I am at a loss as to understand why such a question was put to Mr McGrath other than to attempt to harm him and if so why? Using race as a weapon to harm who is essentially a decent man staggers me.
I would be extremely interested in any stastitics that would support a contention that anyone of any colour would leave this country, a country built on fairness and equality for all on the basis on a city mayor, ludicrous.
No, I suggest that anyone who uses race and the question of race in such a venal manner should be avoided at all costs both professionally and socially, the language used as we all know is code to deny debate and further division.
In Australian Press...
Submitted by Spangler on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 10:34am.
I include an excerpt from "THE AGE" newspaper (the Melbourne standard) as to what is being said here in Australia:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The scalp of James McGrath, 34, has not been claimed by one of London's heavyweight newspapers but by a veteran black activist and citizen journalist who waited politely for a response for more than a month before publishing the young gun's damning comments.
Mr McGrath, who was handpicked on to Mr Johnson's personal staff by John Howard's favourite strategist, Lynton Crosby, agreed to a sit-down interview with Marc Wadsworth soon after Mr Johnson's resounding victory over Labour's long-serving mayor Ken Livingstone.
During a wide-ranging conversation, Mar Wadsworth asked Mr McGrath if Mr Johnson's win and his earlier Spectator musings referring to blacks as "piccaninnies and Africans and their water melon smiles" - might spark an exodus of African and Caribbean immigrants from London.
Mr McGrath responded: "Well, let them go if they don't like it here."
Mr Wadsworth, who founded the all-party Anti Racist Alilance with the support of high Tory Sir Ivan Lawrence MP, is a high profile community activist whose own son has been admitted to hospital, one of London's hundreds of teenage stabbing victims.
He wrote in The Latest.com, a political news and citizen journalist site, that Mr McGrath's comments about black people were as "robust and as distant from being politically correct as his country".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
that last quote on the last line, is what I referred to. A sad show for all thinking Australians.
Causing a stir
Submitted by chris on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 9:21am.
Chris Gaynor
Im glad this story has sparked debate - the problem is what do we define as racism, and what do we define as simple comment or personal opinion?
Johnson's immediate reaction is, like most things to try and calm down the story by acting tough.
The problem is that almost any comment nowadays can be twisted by those on both sides of the fences.
He should have never made those comments especially if he (and I assume he wasn't so naive to think that they wouldn't be reported by Mr Wadsworth.)
I was made aware of this story yesterday afternoon when someone from The Independent Newspaper phoned my home number asking me if I had the editor's mobile number.
I neatly replied that I didn't know his mobile number, and that the reporter could get hold via the contact details on the website.
I had an inkling this story would come out eventually -
Having scanned all the newspapers and websites today, it amazes me at how the story can be twisted by different media outlets.
It has certainly caused a stir. I think. In one paper I read, it said that the interviewee had never intended for the remarks to be published, and that the editor had not implied they would be published.
Forget me if I'm wrong - but is this not what journalism is about? Are we supposed to read people's minds? Fair enough, if the interviewee specifically says they want something off the record - then it is a duty to the reporter to obey - but if both parties do not make their intentions clear - then - the reporter should have no worries in publishing?
I'm assuming this is right policy - as we were told something to this effect at noSWeat?
There is no debate.
Submitted by Chantelle Osili on Mon, 23/06/2008 - 9:31am.
There is no debate - the comment made was not racist.
James was asked what he thought about people leaving, and he said "let them go". He did not say, as has been claimed by Wadsworth, that "black people should 'go home' if they didn't like his 'right-wing' boss running the multiracial capital". I am horrified that Wadsworth could actually tell such a bold-faced lie, and then sit by and watch as his actions cost someone their job. How can anyone defend this disgusting, attention-seeking imitation of journalism?
Well done
Telling black people they should go back to their country if they don't like it here is the most basic of racist comments. Whenever I got racist abuse in this country, this sentence was always included.
And it is no defence to say that James McGrath was reacting to a provocative comment by Darcus Howe, whose reference to it reflected the fact that older black people who have been in this country for decades will recognise the election of a Mayor who has made racist comments in the past as a reflection of things going back decades in relation to racism.
Well done The-Latest for being brave enough to expose this at a time when the so-called mainstream news media, which is obsessed with trivia about celebrities rather than serious stories about real people, is too tame to have any bite.