- About Greenslade: you eliminated entirely valid comments. The Thatcher govt via Maxwell used the Mirror (Greenslade editor) to smear the miners in general, and its leadership in particular. It is a SORDID affair, because of the character assassination involved -- I hope you read Seumas Milne's account of this. Furthermore, IT IS NOT appropriate for Greenslade to review a book (Pilger's) which is critical of him... So, on both accounts, i think your edits are not valid.
I cut the comment that it was unacceptable for him to review the book. I have read Seumas's excellent book and you are right about the affair, but I have not touched anything on that. The question of whether it is inappropriate seems to me questionable. Greenslade admits to the fact that it criticises him, so he is not trying to hide that and snipe at the book. He admits it and praises the book. I think that there is a lot more that can be said about Greenslade than an alleged impropriety over a book review?
On Geldof: all of the evaluative statements need some kind of referencing including 1. 'factual' referencing (eg blair's lap) and quotes showing what he has said. and 2. supporting evidence for the evaluation - eg his affiliations and comments and what is wrong with them - rather than give your views (with which I agree), we should have analysis, supporting views and evidence. No?
--David 11:18, 13 November 2007 (GMT)
hi Paul, yes the use of the term terrorologist is the problem isn't it. I think we might need a more neutral category to denote people who are regarded as 'experts' or 'authoritative' on issues to do with terror as Ahmad was... bear with us... --David 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul, do you have a recording of that awful Newsnight segment last night? We should get it online. I will see if I can find one. Kohlman and Weisburd are incredible. Have a look at the meterial on wikipedia about irhabi 007. This is an old story. Not sure why it was on last night except by way of spook spin. --David 08:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Help on formating
You seem to be quite good with Wiki formating. Would you be able to have a look at this page for me?
--Tom Mills 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Quite simple as it turns out. Cheers
--Tom Mills 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find Gohel mentioned in this link: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/internationalHistory/researchSeminars/workshops.htm
--David 09:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
any references for van Creveld?
--David 13:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Paul, something like, "Tom Mills is a freelance researcher and journalist based in London" would be fine. --Tom Mills 08:43, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Provided its attributed to Spinwatch I'm personally happy for it to be posted anywhere --Tom Mills 09:44, 1 May 2008 (BST)
I have to admit, I am reduced to googling this one myself as I have not come across it before. This may or may not be relevant, but there is a Portman Trust mentioned by Paul Johnson in relation to the Portman family which owns a big chunk of London. England is a fen of stagnant waters, courtroom, police and pen. Very mysterious. --Tom Griffin 20:01, 11 May 2008 (BST)
Brian Brivati and the Portman Trust
Curiouser and curiouser!
- In January 1999, when the newspapers were carrying stories that Lord Goodman and his solicitors' firm had misappropriated Portman Trust money, Brian Brivati wrote an article for The THES suggesting that there might be some fire behind the smoke. Many of Goodman's friends who believed that he would not have been reckless enough to mishandle a client's money, even if he had been disposed to do so, feared that Brivati's book, then in the final stages of preparation, would be a hatchet job. Private Acts in a Public Theater
Interestingly, Goodman was one of the people burgled during the campaign against Harold Wilson. I will have a look into Brivati's role in this. It might come in handy for my Euston profile. --Tom Griffin 20:39, 11 May 2008 (BST)
Sorry about that :)
--David 19:19, 17 May 2008 (BST)
can you put the links to the diaries on the Carroll page as a footnote?
--David 13:35, 25 May 2008 (BST)
Hi Paul, the Euston page was getting very long so I moved the American sections to a separate page here:
There is a link at the old page and a note in the edit history which maybe should have been clearer. I have not altered your formatting or removed any information except to move some of it to the new page. --Tom Griffin 23:16, 1 June 2008 (BST)
Thanks for that. Yes there's quite a bit more that can be done on Georgetown but which perhaps would better fit the main Georgetown page (which isn't started yet). --Tom Mills 15:35, 26 June 2008 (BST)
btw I think its better not to ude 'ibid' in the footnotes until the page has really taken shape. Otherwise any additions might create confusion. --Tom Mills 15:38, 26 June 2008 (BST)