Request to 'Government Advisor on Antisemitism'

Request to 'Government Advisor on Antisemitism':


Good afternoon,

Please could you respond to my questions as raised earlier in December on Twitter.

I have 'longformed' them below, for easier comprehension, and expanded on some of the shortened questions with examples.

Yours sincerely,

Illinois Cook

1.

What is antisemitism? please define.

2. What is 'growth' of prejudice? - Define and prove growth.

3. What is the role of an advisor on AS?

4. Why is the role 'with' / announced by/ assigned to, created by , paid for by 1 particular political party only, the right wing Conservative Party? [Is that the reason why you never seem to mention AS on, by or from the right, or the Conservative Party's position on AS allies, donors, foreign governments? Why has Labour instituted strict procedures vs AS for its membership, but other parties have not, and have not insisted their members sign up to them anyway? In what ways could the creation of the role be described as linked, other than in terms of timing, to 2019, or to your decision on whether to stand for re-election, rather than any other year, and in what way could it be described as being linked to the fake Labour AS 'crisis' gingered up online by eg. actors including Cohen, Berger etc. as shown in Chris Friel's 'MuralGaga' research, available online, or now in the several documents detailing the smear? - cf 'Bad News for Labour', 'Antisemitism and the Labour Party' - ed J Stern-Weiner. Define your view on the Labour Party and AS, and on the relationship Zionism has with the right of politics and the AS advisor's view on / relationship with Zionism, please comment on the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) view that Zionism is racism and of eg. Mandela, Pappe's and Kasrils' views on Apartheid in Israel, the meaning of Apartheid to you, and the comparison of this with the terms 'racism', and AS. Please comment on Left wing Jewish People who support Palestine and who support Boycotting the Apartheid Israeli regime being commonly labelled AS, and on studies which find AS to be less prevalent on the left and on media relationship to stories of AS including Advisor's view on 'smearing' vs 'evidence' and news selection and other news and presentation bias claims re various main stream media including BBC, and the evidence that was presented by the media during the last few years, the numbers and data relating to people who have been prosecuted for hate speech using current legal system for AS, also the reason for and justification for, the word 'Independent' in your full title, as given today on twitter at least, and the reason you have an @parliament email address] 5. The 'Advisor' role clearly, judging by your tweets, includes 'instigating' an investigation/investigating? Please define investigations which your role as an advisor includes instigating, and reporting systems, funding, regulation, hierarchy or connection to other reports / regulations / bodies / crimes / the courts / enforcement etc.

6. What are your full powers? [I have not heard of an AS prosecutor, or judge, or enforcement, I am only aware of hate crime laws and dodgy libel cases in which celebs or fake and discredited AS orgs like CAA or lawyers like Mark Lewis attempt to out-buy actual anti-racists to leave them with court bills, cf Greenstein, Silver, Heybroek. [what overlap, if any, does the role have with EHRC, the IHRA definition with examples, press and social media companies' own rules on user conduct, the defamation law cf.

The Defamation Act 2013, the 'honest opinion' defence, the 'fair comment' defence. What action if any will you be taking against these and other smearers for their cheapening of AS in order to 'take down' (cf Shai Masot conspiracy) members of the left, who oppose rightwing elements who support the Israeli state and those who oppose Israeli Apartheid or support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions vs the Israeli state.]

7. What qualifications do you have for the role? [Did others apply? Did you play a role against South African Apartheid or other racism or AS previously? - Please describe ]

8. [Define antisemitism in terms of prejudice and racism and actions and private speech and public tweets], and please discuss how I could measure my own prejudices, with regard to human beings.

9. Please talk about your own prejudices, how they could affect the role?

John Mann

@LordJohnMann

·

Dec 13

I can this morning announce that as government advisor on antisemitism that I will be instigating an investigation this January into the role of the Canary and other websites in the growth of antisemitism in the United Kingdom. https://twitter.com/supergutman/status/1205296902301990912

illinois cook 

@illi4141

·

Dec 13

Replying to

@LordJohnMann

What is Antisemitism? what is growth of prejudice? Prove growth. What is the role of an advisor on AS? Y is role with 1 political party? Adv. includes instigating an investigatn/investigating? What r your powers? What qualifications?Measure my prejudice. Tlk about your prejudices

  

John Mann

@LordJohnMann

·

Dec 31

Not a civil servant and you don’t pay my salary. But all questions welcome. You can email mannjl@Parliament.uk or you can write a letter.



Update: There has been no proper response, only this :

Illinois Cook <illi41g@gmail.com>	Tue, 31 Dec 2019, 17:15
to Lord, bcc: Chris, bcc: michael, bcc: info, bcc: psc, bcc: me

Yes, so in the new year, perhaps I could get a proper response?

There's nothing in Hansard except one sentence in the Jenrick Statement, and some contributions previous which have no relevance to my questions on your role. 

We have agreed so far that such info should be available, and this could not purely of course be so on the basis of me trapesing round the country asking you a question at every meeting with no prepared info for you to hand over for scrutiny as you must agree?

A full result would most preferably take the form of the info i have asked for to be provided online for public scrutiny, or if it doesn't exist yet, to be provided to myself or the public, and then myself or any interested party being able to ask questions about it. Without having to travel would surely be a more modern and ethical solution at that stage also.

Yours sincerely,

Illi Cook

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, 16:41 MANN OF HOLBECK MOOR, Lord, <mannjl@parliament.uk> wrote:

Looks like you will need to attend one of the numerous public events - averaging one a week and I suggest you search Hansard for all the detail you want- it’s fully accessible to you.

Happy New Year

John

  

Updated 28 May 2020, no further response from Tsar Mann. Total Fraud.

NHS privatisation coverage complaint to BBC in 2013

BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-2073968-T4WQ2N



Inbox x








bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk

Fri, 26 Apr 2013, 10:45





to me










Dear Mr Cook



Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is an automated email confirming we have received the complaint below and submitted in this name via www.bbc.co.uk/complaints. Please do not reply to this email since it is generated from an unmonitored address. If you believe you have received this in error please contact us using our webform at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.



We attach the text of the complaint for your records and will normally include it in our overnight report of all today’s audience reaction. This is circulated to BBC staff tomorrow (with your personal details removed) and ensures your points will reach the right people quickly. We aim normally to reply within 10 working days (around 2 weeks) depending on the nature of your complaint.



To make sure we use the licence fee efficiently we may not investigate every issue in detail, and for consistency may send the same reply if others have also complained about the same issue. For our full complaints procedures and how we consider the issues raised in feedback please read www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/



----------



YOUR COMPLAINT:



Complaint Summary: Not enough coverage in general news of end of NHS



Full Complaint: Not enough. This is the end of the greatest national institution! Not enough analysis, not enough simple news, no how this will affect you etc. I watched the Lords vote on your niche interest and niche viewing figures parliament channel, but I am talking about the national and regional news progs on BBC1. Shameful. It is a political act to have so little coverage, the BBC has a responsibility to educate about these changes before and as they happen.







----------



Thank you again for contacting us.



BBC Complaints



NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.













BBC Complaints - Case Number CAS-2073968-T4WQ2N



Inbox x








bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk

Wed, 1 May 2013, 13:25





to me










Dear Mr Cook

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC News’ coverage of the debate and vote on Section 75 of the Health and Social Bill in the House of Lords on 24 April 2013.

BBC News has regularly covered and will continue to cover the changes in the NHS. Accordingly, we have reported on the progression of this bill through Parliament. The BBC News website reported on the most recent Lords debate and vote at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22268417

BBC Parliament provided live coverage of the debate and vote on 24 April and broadcast highlights of the session on 25 April. The full session can still be seen on the BBC’s Democracy Live website at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-lords-22283592

We feel it is important to add that 24 April was a strong news day for health stories, with a number competing for space during our bulletins. On the evening of the vote and into the next day, BBC News covered the following health stories: growing pressure on Accident and Emergency Units and the subsequent discussion during Prime Minister’s Questions, the cosmetic surgery review, hospital mortality statistics, measles figures for England and a report on sugary drinks causing 20% more diabetes.

BBC News believes our health teams have reflected the movement of this bill through Parliament and other developments within the NHS across a range of our coverage.

We'd also like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our Audience Log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The Audience Logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions on future BBC programmes and content.

Once again, thank you for contacting us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.








ReplyForward

BBC Slavery anniversary error, unfavourable response to complaint

Dear Mr Cook




Thank you for your further e-mail. Please accept our apologies for the

delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response

and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.




It is worth bearing in mind that this was part of 'Newsnight Review' rather

than a news report within the main body of the programme and the aim was

not to enter into a lengthy look at slavery and its abolition.




Your original complaint took issue with the following piece of script:




"The film Amazing Grace has been released to coincide with the 200th

anniversary of the passing of a bill which outlawed the slave trade in

Britain and its empire."




The general historical consensus, as far as I am aware, is that in 1806,

parliament passed an act to abolish the supply of slaves on British ships

to foreign and conquered colonies. This was followed up by the total

abolition of the British slave trade in 1807. It ended more than 200 years

of slave trading. The Abolition of Slavery Act, passed in 1833, freed all

slaves in the British Empire and provided for compensation for their owners.




I confess to being unsure as to exactly how the brief introduction

misrepresented this or was factually inaccurate. As a result there is

little more we can add other than to apologise again if you were concerned.




Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.




Regards




Damian Whyte

BBC Information

__________________________________________

The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC. Want to

help it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved just click on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust




-----Original Message-----




{Title:} Mr

{First Name:} Illinois

{Last Name:} Cook







{Email:} illinoisc@hotmail.com

{Phone:}

{Postcode:} E3 5AH

{Country:} England




{About:} General

{Network:}
















{Programme Name:}

{Transmission Date:}




{Comments:}

Please accept an official complaint at the way my comments/complaint was

dealt with by one of your staff. The problem is that although I have

caught Kirsty Wark in a minor error in the way she described the 1807

Act in the mere introduction to a news item, your correspondent has

unnanccountably replied twice using two different ways of saying that no

error was made. I really don't see why you would feel the need to defend

an error with such methods, so would you please explain the responses I

have recieved? Quoted: Dear Mr Cook




Thank you for your further e-mail.




I note that you were having difficulties sending a complaint to us. For

future

reference, the Make a Complaint option on the Complaints website offers

the

following webform:




http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml




With regards to my previous response, at no point in the programme did

Kirsty

say that Slavery ended 1807, she said that this date marked the

anniversary of a

bill passed to outlaw the trade of slaves.




Also in the opening of the programme, when stating that a review of

'Amazing

Grace' was to feature, she referred to it being a film about the

beginning of

the end of slavery.




Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.




Regards




Damian Whyte

BBC Information

__________________________________________

The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC. Want

to help

it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved just click on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust




-----Original Message-----




{Title:} Mr

{First Name:} Illinois

{Last Name:} Cook




{Email:} illinoisc@hotmail.com

{Phone:}

{Postcode:} E3 5AH




{Country:} England

{About:} TV

{Network:} BBC2
















{Programme Name:} newsnight

{Transmission Date:}23 - 03 - 07




{Comments:}

Had to use the 'send praise' choice of feedback type, as 'comments..'

and 'complaints..' sent me into a loop of pages which didn't get

anywhere, so therefore that can form my first complaint.




My second is this:




-----Original Message-----

Dear Damian Whyte, can you read?




"After the passing of Abolition of the Slave Trade Act

<http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery07.htm> in 1807, British

captains

who were caught continuing the trade were fined Ã'£100 for every

slave found on

board. However, this law did not stop the British slave

trade.....Parliament

passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in

the

British Empire their freedom"




Slavery was still taking place in the British Empire until 1833 quite

legally.

























It's up to us to solve the Middle East problem - march on London, June

9th 2007:




http://www.enoughoccupation.org/enough







_____




From: info@bbc.co.uk

To: illinoisc@hotmail.com

Subject: Newsnight Review [T2007032400JAS010Z2192921]

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:51:09 +0100 (BST)

>Dear Mr Cook

>

>Thank you for your e-mail.

>

>I note your concerns regarding 'Newsnight Review' on 23 March and that

you

believe Kirsty Wark made an error in her introduction to the review of

'Amazing

Grace'. Having reviewed the programme I can confirm that what Kirsty

actually

said was:

>

>"The film Amazing Grace has been released to coincide with the 200th

anniversary of the passing of a bill which outlawed the slave trade in

Britain

and its empire."

>

>This is factually correct, the link you supplied also confirms this.

>

>Please be assured that your comments have been fully registered on our

daily

audience log. This internal document will be made available to the

'Newsnight

Review' production team and Senior BBC Management.

>

>Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.

>

>Regards

>

>Damian Whyte

>BBC Information

>__________________________________________

>The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC.

Want to

help it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved just click

on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust

>

>-----Original Message-----

>

>{Title:} Mr

>{First Name:} Illinois

>{Last Name:} Cook

>

>

>{Email:} illinoisc@hotmail.com

>{Phone:}

>{Postcode:} E3 5AH

>{Country:} England

>

>{About:} General

>{Network:} BBC2

>

>

>

>

>

>{Programme Name:} Newsnight (Review)

>{Transmission Date:}23 - 03 - 07

>

>{Comments:}

>At the beginning of Newsnight Review Kirsty said 'the 200th anniversary

>of the Abolition Act which abolished Slavery in the British Empire'.

>This was a shoddy mistake as one of the key points about the 1807 Act

is

>that it did NOT do this, and indeed this was not until until 1833 - see

>here:

>

>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery33.htm

>




Yours sincerely,




Illinois Cook



















http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.

If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.

Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.

Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.

Further communication will signify your consent to this.








...

Further to my 'BBC communication' post in May 2010 re BBC Bias / impartiality, which I updated today

Fri, 16 Nov 2018, 13:08

Dear Mr Cook

Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is to confirm we’ve received the attached complaint sent in this name. We’ve included the text of the complaint and a case reference for your records (see below).

Please don’t reply to this email because it’s an automated acknowledgement sent from an account which can’t receive replies. If you do need to get in touch, please use our webform instead at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints, quoting your reference number.

We’ll normally include the text below in our overnight report to producers and management of all the complaints and other reaction we receive today (with your personal details removed). This means it will reach the right people by tomorrow morning.

We’ll do our best to reply as soon as we can, but the time needed depends on the nature of your complaint. If we can’t reply as soon as we’d like (usually within 10 working days) we’ll let you know. For full details of our complaints process please visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/.

Here are the details of your complaint:----------

YOUR COMPLAINT:Complaint Summary: Antisemitism Smear vs Corbyn

Full Complaint: Obvious outrageous bias to allow this slanderous smear.
----------Thank you again for contacting us,BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaintsPlease note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number).

bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk <bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk>	Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 16:56
to me Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 16:56

Dear Mr Cook
Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about the edition of Question Time from Milford Haven.

We have received a range of feedback about this edition. To allow us to reply promptly to your concerns, and to ensure we use our Licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, we’re addressing here a range of issues which viewers have raised. Our complaints process allows us to offer a consolidated reply like this when necessary. We’re sorry that we can’t reply personally to you on each point which has been made. Please be assured that your reaction has been accurately shared with the programme makers, as well as senior staff.

The comments from Claire Perry MP regarding the Labour leader provoked a strong, mixed reaction from the studio audience. David Dimbleby controlled the situation by bringing her back to the point she was asked about, and asked her to make it in full. David then ensured that Barry Gardiner MP, a close ally of Mr Corbyn, was given an equally clear opportunity to challenge the comments. Mr Gardiner addressed the ‘very personal’ remarks about Jeremy Corbyn as he wished, and in full.

David Dimbleby had already reminded the panellists on a number of occasions to allow other people to speak, both from the audience and elsewhere within the panel. Mrs Perry was not the only panellist to be reprimanded by David – his approach treats each guest appropriately and without bias. We feel that he chaired the discussion professionally and reasonably in a lively and passionate setting.

Your reaction has been shared with the programme team and senior staff across BBC Politics.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.