From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 General Discussion 2 CJCurrie's response and Robert I's comments 3 Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Evidence: 3.1 Response to Robert I 3.2 Response to Homeontherange by Robert I 3.3 Response to above by Homeontherange 3.4 Response to Robert I by CJCurrie 3.5 Response by Robert I 3.6 Sources

[edit] General Discussion

One of Robert I's arguments re Gregory Lauder-Frost's court case is that it was a purely personal matter. I note here the following quote from the director of the Western Goals Institute re its closure: "On reflection the Le Pen visit was the zenith and also the beginning of the end. Gregory's trial was the last straw." I did not include the second sentence in that article because the court case issue was still ongoing re the Gregory Lauder-Frost article. The shorter version of the quote (and source and context) is at the end of the "Global links" section of the Institute article (here). Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• What is the point you are trying to make here? The Western Goals Institute did not "close". But the reporter caught Andrew Smith on the hop, because he had just lost his employment and was extremely depressed. What is your obsession with Lauder-Frost's case in 1992? Are you just another demoniser? Is that what Wikipedia is about? Robert I 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The point I'm trying to make is that the court case you say is merely personal has some political significance, as it was "the last straw" for WGI. You imply WGI didn't close in 1992 (in which case, why did Andrew Smith lose his employment at that time, as you say above?) - well the activities listed afterwards seem to be essentially limited to writing letters to newspapers and a couple of press statements. If that's not "closing", then find a better word to describe the break with what went before. And it is not "demonisation": anybody can make mistakes, it's a fairly long article (on GLF), and readers can judge significance for themselves. I'm not, by the way, "obsessed", I'm just stubborn. Having come across these articles more or less random (was it RFC or something?) I see no good reason (your legalistic rumblings aside) for excluding a sourced, notable, relevant, contextualised public domain fact. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats not a very good answer. The WGI carried on with a variety of activites. Just because they are not all flagged up in the media is meaningless. They had for instance, a major dinner in early 1994 at which a M.P., was the guest-of-honour/speaker. They were still producing publications throughout the 1990s, most of which can be found at the British Library. How does that equate to "closed down". Andrew Smith was interviewed, briefly, when he had just lost his job because of his political acivities. Naturally he was depressed. People say weird and wonderful things when they are depressed. But the activities in Britain speak for themselves. they may not be so obvious overseas. As for flagging up issues which were not actually in the political domain, which are now not relevant, and which according to our laws (see my comments on the Gregory Lauder-Frost talk page) could only be described as being done for deliberate demonisation of individuals, that is wrong. Robert I 11:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going on the material in the WGI article. If you have relevant (preferably sourced) things to add, stop trying to see how often you can use the word "demonisation" in a day and do something useful like clarifying what happened 1992-2001. Of course, I may have doubts about what you say, but we'll discuss that if necessary. Why doubts? Because you still haven't explained why you claimed (on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost) that GLF was released on appeal in June 1993, which is untrue. (And incidentally, this claim of yours was the original reason I thought the trial should be mentioned: if GLF was actually cleared (which hasn't been mentioned in any media), it would be useful to document this - especially if the reasons behind bringing the case, as you have implied, were political.) Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Pardon? You are now accusing me of lying? I have never said he was "cleared" I detailed at length, some time ago, that the matter was overturned. I think it was May 1993. I would have to contact him and ask for the details. That might not be an easy matter in the circumstances. but it is still irrelevant to 2006 and the only reason for constantly banging on about it must be demonisation. (Sorry you don't like this word but to me it seems so appropriate). Robert I 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse of you lying, I said that you'd claimed something which is untrue. (I did not say you knew it was untrue at the time you said it.) You claimed here that he'd been released on appeal in June 1993. I replied to that with sources disproving that, to which you never responded. You gave the "successful appeal" as the reason for not putting the case in the article (after I'd asked for a good reason); but you have yet to explain how mentioning a case and its successful appeal is "demonisation". Rd232 ^talk 16:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Over 95% of court cases and appeals never appear in the media here. Thousands of people pass through the courts each week. Spectacular and very high profile cases/people naturally attract attention, but virtually everyone else is ignored. In addition, many Appeals are often heard which don't appear in the printed lists of the day because they are on 24 hour notice. This is very common. But the principle reason for not dfiscussing this further is that it is against the law here to do so in public. Whether or not an appeal is successful, for small offences/sentences, after 10 years have passed, such people are covered by several laws enabling them to once more lead normal lives without being constantly demonised by one event from their distant past. Publication of such things also affects family, children, friends, and employment prospects. I am suprised you don't have such laws. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've listed a number of media references to the case (there were some more I didn't list), none of which mentioned the appeal, and all of which should have done if there had been one. You have yet to explain how it is "demonisation" if he successfully appealed, as you claim. You have yet to explain how setting the record straight in this respect would (negatively) affect "family, children, friends...". Rd232 ^talk 13:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Raising the entire thing publicly naturally has an effect. Naturally is will be seen as unnecessary demonisation. What other reason could there be for raising details of a 1992 court case in 2006, appeal or no appeal? Anyway, thats what the law states and I would agree that. It is disappointing you cannot see that. I have already covered the 'media' re this matter. You appear to place your life's entire observations on it. That is possibly your mistake. The media DO NOT cover everything, and they frequently get things wrong; they are frequently sued also for publishing crap. GLF has a web-page for his genealogical work. Why don't you email him and get it all from the horse's mouth? Robert I 15:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It takes an effort of will not to respond to your obfuscation with profanity. I have told you that media DID cover the case and DID NOT mention the alleged appeal in a context when they SHOULD HAVE if there was one. This did not happen once, it happened a number of times, in different papers, over a period of years. I conclude that you are in fact lying about the appeal, since otherwise your constant reiteration of "demonisation" makes no sense. I point out that I have never attempted to add the case to the article, I have merely tried with, extreme patience, to get out of you a good reason why it should not go in. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have attempted to answer your questions. There is no need to get up tight because you don't like them. I am not a liar and a resent that comment. You seem to think that the media acts in some sort of regular manner, which they do not. They did not "cover the case". Yes, they covered the second court hearing (28 Nov 92) - the hearing for witnesses, mitigation, and sentencing. That is all. I cannot say why they did not cover the first (formal charges, pleadings, etc), third (hearing for an emergency appeal - refused) or fourth hearings (appeal). You will have to ask them that. You simply fail to understand that the raising of these matters after such a long time is very painful to those concerned who want it all buried. Robert I 14:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we can settle this by having a British wikipedian call the Home Office and inquire as to whether Lauder-Frost has a criminal record? That should settle the question of whether his appeal was a success.63.135.30.9 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the suggestion, but on its own that would be original research (Wikipedia:no original research); though it might lead to information that could be verified more easily (Wikipedia:verifiability). But I don't care enough to do that (I'm sure it's not as easy as you make it sound), and I've essentially given up on the issue. I just wish Robert_I hadn't (intentionally or not) misled me about the appeal, which I then wanted to get to the bottom of; all in all a colossal waste of time. Rd232 ^talk 09:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Depends on how it's used. We wouldn't be able to say "Lauder-Frost has a criminal record" based on a call to the Home Office but that knowledge would give us enough background info to justify removing the reference to Lauder-Frost winning on appeal given that that claim is not otherwise substantiated.64.231.225.206 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  The media referred to the case on a number of occasions 1993-97 without mentioning any appeal. Why didn't GLF sue them, or ask for a correction? Because a successful appeal didn't happen, I'm guessing. If you hadn't brought up the red herring of a successful appeal, I'd have had more time for the "pain" argument (which if a successful appeal happened, makes no sense to me). Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

• Your fatal flaw here is in thinking that journalists are absolutely reliably informed (they are not), that Lauder-Frost is visiting a newspagent every day of the week and purchasing any number of newspapers on a daily basis and examining them minutely just to see if he gets a mention. I doubt whether he was that obsessed with himself, or that he had the time or the money. Moreover, you just overlook the costs of suing (although he did make complaints to the Press Complaints Commission in 1993, but I'm not sure what about). Your problem is that being 'today's children' with computers etc., you have forgotten that only ten or so years ago it was a major exersize locating mentions in newspapers. Only the Times had a published index. Robert I 09:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The material in the WGI article has been so fantastically messed around with I can't comment fully on it now. I havn't had the time to address it. But all pressure groups rely upon publicity and Press Releases, Letters-to-Editors, and other publications are the standard forms of getting their message across to a wider audience. Therefore it is natural that these things will come to the fore. I am currently writing up the WGI and I have their files/archive here for two weeks. So if you have a private email address or fax I am happy to let you have sight of anything you feel you want to see. The claims by journalists about this organisation are just farcical and often sheer fantasy. But they did have a line up of establishment figures supporting them and so were more mainstream than not because of that. Eventually it was the media which quietened them down, in conjunction with the fall of the Eastern Bloc. Robert I 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add whatever sourced material you think helpful. Rd232 ^talk 16:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

The thing is, I have previously added non-press materials I have sourced and it has been deleted. Moreover, I have sometimes placed the sourced books etc., below the article concerned and I have still been accused of not supplying a source. So it seems I cannot win. (I am not at home today so I cannot send anything through). Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie's response and Robert I's comments

Several responses, actually:

Robert I's comments vis-a-vis the Moncur article have been addressed here. CJCurrie 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As regards the City Limits article, I have repeatedly asked Robert I to provide the contest of his quote. He has not done so. Given his track record, I am reluctant to accept at face value that the "true Conservative speaks" line was not facetious or sarcastic. CJCurrie 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

• But again, just WHO ARE YOU?! Are we all somehow answerable to you? So YOU decide what is sarcastic? Guive us a break. That was a clear statement. Whether it was sarcastic or not is irrelevant. It was a factual comment on Lauder-Frost, and I did provide the context. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia editor with the same right as any Wikipedia editor: the right to insist on accuracy in sources. I cannot remember seeing the context of City Limits headline, your present comment notwithstanding.

You could resolve the matter by providing the text of the article, if you are so inclined. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

The text is immaterial. The headline above Lauder-Frost's letter is clear. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This does not strike me as a particularly strong argument. CJCurrie 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning GLF's trial, I can say the following:

(i) I am not the one who initially brought up the matter. One of the anonymous contributors initially referenced the conviction on the main article page. I later provided more information, which was subsequently deleted.

(ii) After being informed that the Scottish Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) may, under certain circumstances, prohibit outside parties from referencing spent offences, I voluntarily removed all of the specific references to GLF's trial which I had written on the GLF article talk page. This was an act of courtesy: Robert I has not convinced me that I was legally bound to remove the information, and I strongly suspect that he is misrepresenting Scottish law (in both its particulars and its extent) for intimidation purposes. Nonetheless, if GLF is provided legal protection in Britain for his spent offence, I am not inclined the push the point. Robert I has never acknowledged this courtesy.

(iii) I have already indicated on the GLF article talk page that I have no objection to all article references to GLF's trial being removed, if such is the group consensus. Meanwhile, Robert I continues with implied legal threats ([1]). CJCurrie 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is UK legislation. The law of Convicium (see my comments on the Talk page for Gregory Lauder-Frost) is Scottish. All that aside, it was YOU who attempted to make a big issue of this now quite old matter. The only reason for raising this and plastering it all over the internet could be demonisation. No other. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've aleady explained, at length, why it was not demonisation. My concern now is not with the trial/conviction itself, but with the continued legal threats (implied or otherwise). CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the more general point:

What Robert I describes as a "demonisation" campaign is actually something quite different.

Some time ago, I discovered that a small number of contributors (probably no more than three, perhaps no more than two) were using Wikipedia as a soap box to write a series of articles glorifying figures and organizations associated with the British and South African far-right. These articles were extremely NPOV in nature, and contained a number of dubious and unverifiable claims.

• Crap. These organisations were packed with mainstream figures and had large memberships. They were virtually all members of the Conservative Party, not the BNP! They existed and had a role to play. They were very much in the public domain and so it helps, if Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, that people can read what these organisations and individuals were about and what they stood for. No-one is trying to "glorify" anyone. Attempts have been made to accurately chronicle individuals and groups, almost all now non-active in real terms. It is vital that we have the official line of these groups rather than a smears by uninformed left-wing journalists who naturally hated them. CJ Currie himself (i.e: one contributor) has written a considerable number of articles. I personally don't approve of the political slant to several of them but I have not attacked them, as he has ours. "Far-right" is a standard left-wing and media term used regularly to instantly place people and their opinions beyond the pale.Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(i) The BNP does not have a monopoly on the far-right. I've never said that GLF was a BNP member, and I'd be rather surprised if he had been. (Btw, I've concluded that the GLF article should not directly describe its subject as "far-right", but quoting a newspaper article from a quality publication that presents this assertation is acceptable.)

Yes, but there again, this is your opinion. More people than not here do not regard the Independent (let alone the Guardian) as a "quality publication". They are organs of the Left. Quote from them if you must but permit qualification by those smeared. You ask for the full text of the letter you mention above but when we ask for the evidence behind these smear articles we are told it is not necessary that just appearing in anewspaper is sufficient. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(ii) Robert I is in the habit of dismissing articles he disagrees with as "smears by uninformed left-wing journalists", rather than addressing the specific points therein. His frequent response to articles in the Guardian or Independent (both of which are regarded as quality journals, and are acceptable sources) has been to criticize the political slant of the publication or author. It has been pointed out to him on a number of occasions that this is not a credible response, but his tactics do not appear to have changed. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just answered that, above. These are not regarded by the overwhelming readership of mainstream dailies as "quality journals" otherwise they would have the bulk of the readership. in fact they have the smallest circulations of any of the quality dailies. Who are YOU to decide what is a "credible response"! Your "tactics" have not changed either. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Quality journal" is a descriptive term, not a judgemental one, and it does not refer to political slant. The Guardian, Independent, Times and Telegraph are all "quality journals"; the Sun, a tabloid, is not. Quality journals of any sort are acceptable sources -- perhaps not as fountains of absolute wisdom, but for critical assessments of diverse subjects. CJCurrie 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Several examples have already been provided above, but to recap some of the more egregious instances:

Following the long and deadly struggle with Marxist terrorists in Rhodesia, and what Ward called "the betrayal of western Nations to their own kin", Rhodesia fell. As a member of the government hierarchy Ward was forced out of his homeland. He and his family were placed upon a Death List and fled to South Africa, where he advised the government there on sanctions-busting. ([2] The author of this section later tried to delete the article after my changes.)

• This was all entirely true and accurate. It may not conform to CJCurry's assessment of matters but it is the truth. That is unless he is trying to say that Harvey Ward did not make these comments, and that the Marxist terrorists in Rhodesia (who murdered mostly blacks) were a figment of someone's imagination. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not object to the direct quote from Ward (I believe it's still listed on the page; if not, I'll return it). I objected to "long and deadly struggle with Marxist terrorists", "Rhodesia fell" and "forced out of his homeland". The first two phrases are hopelessly POV, the last is both dubious and unduly melodramatic. No one disputes that there was an insurrection in Rhodesia during the 1970s, and I'm not a fan of Robert Mugabe by any stretch of the imagination -- but dismissing ZAPU and ZANU as "Marxist terrorists" is still a gross violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. (Also, Rhodesia "fell" as a result of negotiated settlements, not military action.)

• Sorry, but you are wrong. Mugabe was trained by the RedChinese and many of his elite units were also trained by them and the North Koreans. These are well-documented facts. Terrorism is murdering people for your political objectives. This is precisely what was happening in Rhodesia. Why were these terrorists any different to the terrorists, say, in Iraq today? If you are suggesting that the absolute TRUTH is a violation of Wikipedia's policy then there is something grossly wrong with it.Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have said, many times, that I do not support Mugabe (and you may be interested to know that his ties to China frequently put him at odds with other liberation groups in the region -- particulary in 1979, when Chinese-Soviet relations were at an all-time low). But this is beside the point.

You may be familiar with the expression that one man's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter. Mugabe (leaving aside his recent activities) was both hailed as a liberator and cursed as a terrorist during the 1980s. No neutral article could present either view as "fair and balanced", accordingly. CJCurrie 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also objected to the "Death List" assertion as that no proof was provided. I have repeatedly said that I will permit the reference to be returned if (i) proof can be shown that Ward was on a death list, or (ii) proof can be shown that he believed he was on a death list. So far, no evidence has been provided. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Ward said he was on the Mugabe's Death List and this was confirmed by Denis Walker and Father Lewis. i have no reason to believe that these people were lying. To suggest that I somehow acquire Mugabe's death list and provide it to you is just fatuous. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to acquire "Mugabe's death list", particularly as I'm not convinced that this ever existed. You apparently have access to several books by Father Lewis; if he ever made reference in print to Ward believing he was on a death list, I wouldn't have any objection to this appearing in the article. CJCurrie 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

However, Lauder-Frost's domestic affairs were a cause of almost constant anxiety to him. In April 1985 his wife had taken a lover and left for the USA. Lauder-Frost was awarded full custody of his daughter, then one year old. However she was subsequently abducted twice and on both occasions taken abroad. Although ultimately successful in her return to Britain, the complicated costs involved over such a long period were crippling him. Many knew this. Following a large Left-wing demonstration outside his office, his politically motivated employers, a government department, decided to try and get rid of him. ([3] Bear in mind that Gregory Lauder-Frost himself may have been the author of this passage)

• Again, everything in this passage is absolutely true. I have previously cited various local newspapers and demo leaflets on this matter. Again, clearly Curry does not like it because it may explain matters too much, whereas he wishes to demonise. Explanation is surely essential if people are to have a balanced informative view. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did you cite these, exactly? You indicated that there was a protest outside GLF's former place of work, and you asserted that the SWP was involved. I have not contested either of these claims. You have not, however, shown proof that GLF's employers fired him as a result of the protest.

They did not fire him, although they tried. Eventually he gave his notice a month later which was (unsurprisingly) accepted. He saw his position as untenable and was proposing to sue for constructive dismissal. This did not come to pass. I did cite all this on his Talk page. I listed the various local newspapers the demos were reported in and a cited from the 'Red' (it was even coloured red!) leaflet distributed by the SWP and COHSE (trade union) prior to the demo. All the huge black and white plackards carried at the demo and shown in the newspapers photos were the standard SWP issue for just bout every left-wing demo in Britain. I have even seen them at demos in Sydney! Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You cited newspaper descriptions of the demo, true. The problem is that, (i) you didn't tie this to GLF directly, and (ii) you didn't provide a citation for anything else. CJCurrie 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

• Come on now. I did cite the actual newspaper concerned, and the dates, and if I was not citing them with regard to lauder-Frost just what was I doing? Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning GLF's daughter, you have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. (Btw, on the subject of demonisation, I wonder what his ex-wife would think about this passage.) CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Again, I have cited plenty of evidence. His wife lost every single court case in three different countries. I don't think she'd have any comment whatsoever! Here are the newspapers I had sight of from the USA: The North Jersey Herald & News (Final edition) 9 Feb 1991; The Record, New Jersey, 11 Feb 1991. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of these articles. If they actually comment on the case, they could be appropriate for the GLF article (though I would request assurances that they are being cited accurately). I also continue to wonder if his ex-wife would tell a different story. CJCurrie 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

• His ex-wife's version is going to be a bit flawed is it not, considering she lost every case in three countries. It seems to me you are happy to quote Guardian or Independent journalists slagging everyone off as 'hard-right' or "leading right-wing extremists" without any qualification whatsoever, but when it comes to other mentions which may show GLF or others in a more favourable light you "request assurances that they are being cited accurately" or wonder whether there is "a different story". I think you are demonstrating a clear bias.Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know the context under which his ex-wife lost the court cases, so I can make no assessment of whether or not her version would be flawed. I'd consider it worthy of consideration, in any case.

• The greater point is that transmitting private information about her seems a tad inappropriate (ie. "had taken a lover and left for the USA"). Did this information ever appear in print? If not, it seems dubious. CJCurrie 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Western Goals Institute, was a reformation at the beginning of 1989 of Western Goals (UK) (formed in 1985) and the leading anti-communist and Western patriotic pressure group in the United Kingdom conservative political spectrum (although not affiliated to the Conservative Party).

• Again, entirely and absolutely true. All their literature says this.Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see reliable evidence that WGI was "the leading" anti-communist pressure group in Britain, at any time. Beyond which, it's generally not advisable to take official manifesto works at face value. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Why not? Surely if anyone wants to know what an organisation is about they first read its Aims. The Labour Party enacts legislation and then says it is honouring its manifesto committments. What sort of evidence you you require? Surely the history of the organisations relentless anti-communist activities speak for themselves. Name me another organisation in Britain which was prominent and opposing communism. I suggest that the very reason for the WGI's existance was that people right across the political spectrum here were seen or perceived to be appeasing communism. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to cite the stated aims of any organization, but not as absolute and reliable descriptions of the same. There's a significant difference between "claimed to be" and "were".

Also, I suspect that the more mainstream Thatcherites would claim they were rather more prominent in opposing communism (as would the anti-Militant side in Labour, for that matter). Western Goals wasn't really that prominent of a group, as far as general awareness goes. CJCurrie 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

• Give me some evidence that the Conservative Party under Thatcher were vigorously opposing communism please. Their job was surely to govern Great Britain? How do you equate "opposing communism" with handing over Rhodesia to Marxists and supporting the overwhelmingly communist ANC? I think you are a little confused. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Give me some evidence that the Conservative Party under Thatcher were vigorously opposing communism please. I'm speechless. I grant that the Thatcher government was responsible for overseeing the transition of power in Zimbabwe, though it's not clear that they "handed over" the country to ZANU. If they did, it may have been to exacerbate divisions among the liberation movements of southern Africa (among which Mugabe was not universally popular). They certainly weren't pro-ANC, in any case. CJCurrie 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Regularly in the news it constantly campaigned and had links to many traditional, free-thinking, non and anti-communist political organisations in the former Eastern Bloc and also in Western Europe. Firmly opposed to the Liberal-Left consensus in Western politics, the Western Goals Institute argued that it was this concensus which had permitted communism to advance so far into Europe and into other countries throughout the world. Its view was firmly that the West were constantly appeasing communism and all its fellow-travellers, and actually working with them in organisations both abroad and here, such as the British Labour Party, which many former communists had infiltrated.

• Again, all entirely true, and what their various pieces of literature and published Aims says. So what is the problem here? Too close to home I fear for people like CJCurry. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The WGI was generally known for associating with groups like the Front National, Der Republikaner and Franco supporters in Spain (I think the Italian group MSI may have had ties to them as well). "Traditional, free-thinking, non and anti-communist" would not be the most frequent terms applied to these groups by the European press. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

"Generally known"! Now be honest. If I had made that statement you would have said it was unacceptable. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show any "association" with Der Republikaner (although that would not in itself be a crime as this was a main party in Bavaria), or the MSI (although it was once mooted that Mussolin's granddaughter might be invited to address them - hardly an "association"), nor was there any connexion with Francoists in Spain, although, like the majority of the Conservative Party prior to 1940, there were franco supporters. Not quite the same thing. Their blurb carries the general phrases to which you refer. Who am I (or you) to misinterpret it? Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken vis-a-vis Western Goals having ties to Francoists. They held a Franco Memorial Dinner in 1991, and I assumed that a Spanish delegation would have been present. I have not found evidence of this, however, and I will withdraw the point accordingly.

As to the rest, though ...

This is taken from The Observer, 8 December 1991:

As well as having links with Le Pen, Mr [Andrew] Smith admitted contacts with the German Republikaner Partie, and the Italian neo-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano. He saw his new party entering Parliament on the back of proportional representation, to be introduced by the Lib-Lab coalition which would win the election.

• Smith might have had fantasies about setting up a new party but thats all they were. "Contacts" almost certainly related to letters only. In any case the MSI is a very long established Italian parliamentary party. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And this from The Observer, 24 February 1991:

Western Goals has formed close links with the Front National in France, the racist party led by Jean-Marie le Pen, and with the Republikaner Partie in Germany. European Dawn, a Western Goals journal, carried an interview with its leader, Franz Schonuber, a former SS officer. It stated that the length of time since the Second World War made it 'an act of normalisation for German politics to have a nationalistic party'. German journalists were writing 'stupid and false things' about his party, because they were 'uninterested in the real subversives'.

• There is no substantive evidence that Le Pen's party is "racist" (but I would expect that from the Guardian group of newspapers, of which The Observer is their Sunday paper). Le Pen's deputy is married to a Japanese and there are several Jews prominent in the organisation.

What Mr.Schoenhuber did as a young man pre-1945 has no bearing up activities in 1990, when he was a well-known and popular TV presenter and the leader of a popular political party not unlike the Bavarian CSU. I concur with his last sentence entirely. i cannot see how any of this justifies your comments. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Lauder-Frost defended these international links yesterday, saying he supported [SA Conservative Leader] Mr Treurnicht 'on principle'.

• Doubtless he meant the principle of European Western government as opposed to chaotic African communist government. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

From The Guardian, 19 April 1993:

Its activities, including the infiltration of the Monday Club, have infuriated leading Tories, including Norman Fowler, the party chairman. Last year it threatened to invite Alessandra Mussolini of the Italian MSI to a conference fringe meeting.

• "The infiltration of the Monday Club". Pure rubbish, nothing less. There is not a scrap of evidence to support this deliberate smear campaign (started, I should add, by the Guardian newspaper group). I understand the last sentence is true but so what? Can't we hear what others have to say? Or should we all just listen to 'approved' speakers, a bit like Stalin's Russia? Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Observer, 22 November 1992:

Mr Smith had boasted to fellow activists that he had been taken on to attract business from neo-fascist groups abroad, including the Conservative Party of South Africa, the German Republican Party, and the Italian Social Movement (MSI).

• He says this is untrue and there is n evidence. I'd believe him before I believed the Observer's left-wing journalists. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

PR Week, 26 November 1992:

Smith joined Good Relations three weeks ago as an account director and allegedly told associates that he had been hired by Lowe Bell chairman Sir Tim Bell to handle accounts from far-right political parties and organisations, including Allessandra Mussolini's Italian Social Movement (MSI).

• Lifted from the Observer. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Doubtless you'll dismiss all of this as the scribblings of the Far-left. I will note, however, that the following excerpt appeared in your anonymous friend's version of the WGI article:

Western Goals also examined the possibility of links with the then flourishing right-wing party, The Republicans (Germany),led by Franz Shoenhuber, a popular TV presenter in Bavaria, and they also supported the 'Die Deutschen Konservativen e.V.' led by another media personality, Joachim Siegerist, now a parliamentarian in Riga. CJCurrie 20:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

• Well, yes, I do dismiss the garbage from the Guardian and The Observer because they are established organs of The Left with several well-known Marxist journalists, two of whom you have already quoted elsewhere. The see nazis and fascists everywhere. I see nothing wrong at all with the paragraph cited above this comment. Examining a possibility of links with these people is not a crime, nor were they criminal organisations. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not going to comment on the veracity of the articles. My point is that they are typical of how Western Goals was portrayed in the mainstream media. (The group's "anti-communism" was less frequently mentioned, and hardly ever highlighted.) CJCurrie 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It saw its task in Britain to expose the Far Left, and to get its message of 'the enemy within' to a wider audience. It was successful in getting Christian Aid fined by the Charity Commission in England & Wales for their assistance to African terrorists, and frequently called into question donations to Left-Wing organisations made by Soviet front organisations. ([4])

• Again, all entirely factual. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot see the bias in "African terrorists", then? Also, there are no citations provided here. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

The Charity Commission would confirm it. Why don't you email them. And I cannot agree about your definition of a terrorist, because violence and murder for political ends must always be condemned, not dressed up in euphemistic terms. The Christian Aid matter was relatively high profile and there was even a debate with a WGI Director (a barrister) on the wireless with the Director of Christian Aid (he lost). I could dig out all the evidences, but my queston is do you make such endless blanket demands on every poster on Wikipedia? I don't think so. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

When I discovered these (and other) edits, I realized that Wikipedia was being misused as a propaganda tool. I added critical reviews about these (and other) people and organizations to the relevant articles, and removed some of the more rhetorical passages.

• Laughable. This is NOT propaganda but FACT. These statements are an accurate description of the group and its activities. Who is CJCurry to question this? But oviously he does not like such factual statements. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're helping your case with these statements. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You say that but how on earth can I make any other judgement? Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What Robert I has described as "stalking" and "demonisation" has actually been an effort to stop his misuse of Wikipedia and add balance to the relevant articles. As an administrator, I believe I had a responsibility to change the tone of the articles in question, and to discover what other pages might were similarly misused.

• You had a deliberate left-wing agenda here, pure and simple, and you are hiding being your track record as a contributor. Anyone who cannot see that must be on the same political level as yourself. How can you attribute neutrality and balance to, say, communism? I suppose you delete the fact that it has been repsonsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century? If the above quotes are accurate reflections of a group and what they stood for, then how and why should they be changed? Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this anti-communist tangent, though I'm relatively certain that the Wikipedia article on Communism contains "pro" and "con" references. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

These are FACTUAL comments which should not be treated in the casual almost disinterested manner you appear to think they should be treated. Nazis get the full treatement, so why not the communists? Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to accept constructive criticism if any of my additions have been unfair, but I do not accept that the numerous ill-tempered and hostile attacks I have received from Robert I and others have been in any way justified. CJCurrie 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

• Anyone who has acted in the manner you have, with the arrogance and pomposity you have, will naturally attract hostitility. You cannot then complain. Robert I 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Readers may note that Robert I has been directing comments of this sort against me for more than a month now. CJCurrie 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

As I have already said, your arrogant comments on your umpteen edits are extremely provocative. They and the edits were successful in eliciting a response about which you are now complaining. No-one should be above reproach. You certainly don't think I should be. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, I invite readers to compare our respective contributions. CJCurrie 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Something that just occurred to me ...

Robert I:

No, I cannot. Because a terrorist is a terrorist. Violence and murder for political ends must always be condemned, not dressed up in euphamistic terms.

... but didn't Western Goals endorse Jonas Savimbi at one point? How would you describe him? CJCurrie 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

• Fighting against Soviet-backed Marxist forces in Angola? As the Free World suggested that they were (Cold War) dedicated to fighting Soviet-Communist-Marxist forces I'd say that the communists in Angloa were the terrorists. Certainly the bulk of the destruction to civilian towns etc., was carried out by them. Robert I 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A number of one-armed children may disagree with this assessment. In any case, my point is that "terrorist" is often a subjective term. (Btw, wasn't Savimbi a Maoist at one stage?) CJCurrie 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I/Evidence:

[edit] Response to Robert I

Homeontherange's description of ANC terrorist leader and South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani as extremely popular is hardly "neutral". This man was the leader of murderers.

As with various items Robert I has attempted to insert into articles, we have here an example of how he distorts quotations and facts to fit his arguments. I believe the passage he is referring to is the following from the Chris Hani article: "Hani was seen as a charismatic populist leader, with significant support among radical youth".

First of all, the word used is populist which has a different meaning than "extremely popular" (you can be a populist without being popular and vice versa). Moreover, I did not write the passage in question. I suspect, in any case, that Hani was extremely popular amongst his followers and this is probably documentable but I've never actually written that, or words to that effect, in a wikipedia article. Also, frankly, I'm not sure if it's accurate to call Hani a "populist" so it's not a word I would have used.

Secondly, as far as the Levitas quotation, Robert I not only truncated in order to take out a key word (and thus he attempted to obscure the passage's true meaning) he deliberately rearranged the wording in order to hide the fact that he'd removed any words from it.

Thirdly, in relation to the Wind of Change speech, it is not merely my opinion that it addressed apartheid, it is clear from the words of the speech itself:

As a fellow member of the Commonwealth it is our earnest desire to give South Africa our support and encouragement, but I hope you won't mind my saying frankly that there are some aspects of your policies which make it impossible for us to do this without being false to our own deep convictions about the political destinies of free men to which in our own territories we are trying to give effect.[5]

that Macmillan was referring to South Africa's apartheid policy as well as decolonisation has been commentated upon by numerous writers. See [6]Homey 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Homeontherange by Robert I

You will see here the fantastic degree of hair-splitting these people attempt when trying to justify their position. Homeonetherange is trying to tell the reader that this monstrous terrorist was some sort of icon who deserved adulation, when in fact he was just a murderer and a communist. He/she then proceeded to other articles in major attempts to demonise those convicted of Hani's assasination. (See the 22 edits and reversions made by homeontherange on the page for Clive Derby-Lewis. See also the Talk page).I suggest that the distraught families grieving for their loved ones who were macheted to death in their beds on their farms and in their shops might take a different view.

I did not "rearrange the wording" I dropped off the word "racist" from my quote because it was offensive and untrue. The rest of the sentence was true and gave an accurate description of the Club. "The passage's true meaning"? Doubtless the sentence, with or without the offensive smearword at the end, will have a different meaning to different readers depending from which political spectrum they come from. By my quote was entirely accurate in its description of the Club. I don't need lectures from homeontherange on what constitutes a quote. If that is the case he has a lot of work to do in the field of journalism where people are regularly misquoted and quoted out of context.

It has been common practice with the media for some considerable time to describe their enemies as "right-wing", "far-right", "extreme-right" etc. These description do not make it FACT. As far back as the mid-1960s the press were describing Sir Alex Douglas-Home as "right-wing", contested by the Rt.Hon.,Lord Butler in The Conservatives, (London, 1977).

As for MacMillan, the Monday Club opposed his liberalisation of the Conservative Party and to his backtracking on the colonial issue. The speech quote above does not mention apartheid, pure and simple, and when he made it there was no evidence that that was the crucial underlying theme of his speech. In fact, on 14th December 1960 the United Nations General Assembly adopted its Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. (See: Descent From Power - British Foreign Policy 1945-1973 by Professor F.S.Northedge, London, 1974). Harold Macmillan's speech followed that and his speech was heralding decolonisation, something which divided the Conservative Party at home. Hence the establishment of the Monday Club. Homeonetherange has attempted to turn around this establishment of conservative opposition to demonstrate that this was some sort of neo-fascist group of Conservatives who had some sort of obsession with apartheid. There is no evidence to support that. The Club did however, support its kith and kin wherever they were in the world, believed in the Imperial dream, and that European government was best for all peoples. There is nothing fascistic in that, even though such attitudes have now fallen out of fashion. Robert I 10:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• You permit your personal OPINIONS and perceptions to interfere with FACT. He did NOT mention apartheid. His speech is universally accepted as heralding retreat from Empire.

You have no right to interject here. Please read the directions for this particular page, at the top of it. There is also a Talk page. I hope the arbitrators take note of this interjection. Robert I 19:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to above by Homeontherange

The speech quote above does not mention apartheid, pure and simple, and when he made it there was no evidence that that was the crucial underlying theme of his speech.

Then what was Macmillan referring to when he said: As a fellow member of the Commonwealth it is our earnest desire to give South Africa our support and encouragement, but I hope you won't mind my saying frankly that there are some aspects of your policies which make it impossible for us to do this without being false to our own deep convictions about the political destinies of free men to which in our own territories we are trying to give effect.

And why did South African Prime Minister Henrik Verwoerd feel it necessary to respond to Macmillan by defending South Africa's policies[7]?Homey 18:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

You permit your personal OPINIONS and perceptions to interfere with FACT. He did NOT mention apartheid. His speech is universally accepted as heralding retreat from Empire.

It's univerally accepted as both a heralding of retreat from Empire and an attack on apartheid. As with your misquotation of Levitas you are parsing the facts to omit something you find inconvenient:

1. Responding to Harold Macmillan's "winds of change" address that called on South Africa to embrace equality, Verwoerd agreed with the sentiment but argued that "we believe in balance, we believe in allowing exactly those same full opportunities to remain within the grasp of the white man who has made [modern civilisation] possible"." [8]
2. Yet, as a radical realist, Macmillan re-orientated British foreign policy, repairing the "special relationship" with the United States, and, with his "winds of change" speech at Cape Town in 1960, distancing himself from apartheid."[9]
3. "To show the utility of this integration, I offer a close reading of one of the twentieth century's important cases of policy change: British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's "winds of change" speech of 1960, proclaiming Britain's decision to support majority rule in Africa, including the Union (now the Republic) of South Africa."[10]
4. "Macmillan went on to state that Britain could not support apartheid because “there are some aspects of your policies that make it impossible for us to do this without being false to our own deep convictions about the political destinies of free men, to which in our territories we are trying to give effect”. Understandably the NP government of H F Verwoerd and white South Africa in general was not frightfully impressed. Verwoerd said South Africa was a “true white state” that was willing to grant the “fullest rights” to blacks in areas that “their forefathers had settled”." [11]

Homey 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• These are opinions only, not what was stated in the speech. In any case, the speech etc., should be cited on MacMillan's page. You deliberate link and insertion of apartheid placed in other pages is a deliberate attempt to slur the individuals and groups concerned. Do you think no-one notices this? Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"These are opinions only, not what was stated in the speech."

Please see the quotation from the speech at the top of this section. What aspects of South Africa's policies do you think Macmillan was referring to? South Africa's fiscal policy perhaps? Or maybe it was South Africa's policies on whaling?Homey 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Robert I by CJCurrie

Please see the talk page (above). CJCurrie 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Robert I

I have responded on the Talk page concerned.

Since the beginning of December User CJCurry and confederate homeontherange have made 165 attacks (they call them edits) on the Gregory Lauder-Frost page alone (I have yet to check the other articles they've attacked). Last night, CJCurrie reverted a fair edit for this page, commencing at 21.26, and made a dozen more edits to it before 22.33. (Bear in mind that this is a modest article!) An examination of the anon edit made at 21.05 and the page as it stood then, and the subsequent edits made by CJCurry gives you an idea of the sort of thing which has been going on here. Robert I 11:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Robert I is not mentioning that many of my "dozen" edits yesterday were relatively minor adjustments, taken to ensure neutrality and fairness in the wording. I was attempting to develop a workable compromise for the page, as I subsequently explained on the discussion board. Robert's response was more of the usual hostility. In any event, these comments should be made on the talk page, not here. CJCurrie 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a classic ruse to change words and sentences around so that the meaning becomes quite different. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I believe that I have cited more than adequate sources when I compare them to other articles on Wikipedia. For instance, I gave a huge long list of Monday Club publications which demonstrate that they were concerned with the broad range of political issues.

If there is a genuine requirement for a source about something which is quite controversial I can understand that. But I have often been requested for quite silly source materials, which are contained in letters and minutes which I have had sight of only and it is therefore natural that I cannot bundle these up and send them off! I am happy to fax things to people who do not have a particular axe to grind, if that helps.

But not today. I am staying with a friend and not at home. I shall return home tomorrow. Robert I 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)