Grand-uncle Jack - the deserter

Most things about my grand-uncle John Pugh, known as Jack, remain a mystery. He was a black sheep of the family, but why did his brothers and sisters refuse to talk about his life - and death - and take that knowledge to their own graves? How did he end up on the killing fields of the Somme? Now, with some help from experts, I know some of the answers.

The Postcard

Many years ago my father (born in Little Hereford) showed me this slightly crumpled postcard and told me that it was his "uncle Jack who was killed on the Somme":

And that was it - no more information was forthcoming. Later in life, I was told by other family members that Jack "deserted" from the army in the First World War yet was, indeed, killed in action. How could this be?

A family of farm workers

There is a tendency to romanticise the past. But the lot of agricultural workers in Victorian times was usually nasty, brutish and short rather than some bucolic idyll of sunny days and cider-fuelled country dances. Agricultural depressions were frequent and new technology began to reduce the need for workers and - actual - horse power. Having said that, this branch of the Pugh diaspora was a sturdy one (for the most part).

Into this hard world came Thomas Pugh. Born at Burford (Tenbury Wells) in 1868 he became, like his father before him, a farm labourer and cowman. He was illiterate - to the extent of being unable to write his name. In 1887 he married the redoubtable Sarah Phillips. They had 12 live children including my grandmother Mary, Gert (a nurse in France during WW1) and, of course, John (Jack). The daughter of one of these siblings describes Sarah as "fearsome" and opines that Thomas must have been "a brave man to impregnate her so many times"!

From a 1905 Birth Certificate

As with most things about Jack's life, even his birthday is a mystery. Various websites say he was born in Whitchurch, Shropshire, in 1894 but this seems to be incorrect. There are documents which clearly show that he was born in Little Hereford - in "about 1893" or "about 1894". When he joined the army in 1915 he did not provide a date of birth but gave his age as "21 years and 279 days" (which would have been either the 3rd or 4th of April, 1893 noting there are two different dates on the 1915 army Attestation Record).

Thomas and Sarah moved around various farms in the Teme Valley including ones at Boraston Dale, Nash, Berrington, Little Hereford, Greete and Rochford. But Jack was gone from the household by the time of the 1911 census. In a couple of documents he is described as either a groom or a horse dealer. At some point he voluntarily joined a Territorial  army force, the 7th Worcester Regiment. But the lamps were going out all over Europe ...

As more and more records became available online, I was eventually able to locate Jack's - frustratingly incomplete - military records. The Attestation Record shows that he gave a pub as his address, The New Inn at Knighton Common, Tenbury Wells, when he enlisted in January, 1915. He was posted to Aldershot where he joined the Horse Transport section of the Army Service Corps (ASC).

On 23rd September, 1915 Jack deserted. This was confirmed by a military court on 19th October. What happened next is unclear but the only record which post-dates the desertion is an army medical record dated 4th December, 1915 following an examination at Tenbury Wells. His ASC service number has been handwritten on the document. This seems to indicate that the authorities had caught up with him. 

But with no more extant records I had run into a brick wall.

Covid Lockdowns

Like thousands of other people during the pandemic I used the lockdowns to have a sort-out. Looking through old family photos I discovered an uncropped copy of the photo from which the above postcard was made. This now showed his military cap. The badge is not that of the Army Service Corps, but that of the Kings Shropshire Light Infantry (KSLI):

Armed with this clue I contacted Tony Abrahams of the Royal Logistic Corps (successors to the ASC) archive. He kindly put me in touch with the incredible Richard Joyner of the RLC Museum. And Richard cracked the puzzle!

By using records from the Register of Soldier's Effects he located a "James Reece alias Pugh" of the 5th Battalion KSLI. More particularly, "James" had named his parents as Thomas and Sarah Pugh of The Barns, Underley, Tenbury Wells - a known address of my ancestors.

What remained for for me to do now was to find out how James/Jack met his end.

From Tenbury to Thiepval

I am indebted to Richard Gough for providing me with a warm welcome in a cold turret of Shrewsbury Castle - home of the Soldiers of Shropshire Museum where I reviewed further records.

It is still not clear where and when Jack enlisted with the KSLI. One record suggests that it was in Ludlow in "early to mid-July, 1915 but that cannot be right as that was before the date he deserted from the ASC. That part of the story remains a mystery but we do know that he was in the 5th Batallion which, for part of 1915, were training at Blackdown Camp, Aldershot. Is it fanciful to suggest that Jack, also in Aldershot, met up with mates from the Tenbury area now in the KSLI, and decided to throw in his lot with them rather than spending his life with horseflesh? The December, 1915 medical after he had gone "awol" suggests he made no immediate move but, in any event, he made the jump at some point.

We can't say when Jack joined the 5th KSLI or when he embarked for France but, of course, we know that he was there in July, 2016. The 5th missed the horrors of the first day of the Battle of the Somme (1st July) but moved up to the front on the 27th (marching much of the way in very hot weather). Meanwhile, a British advance on 15th July had left an exposed salient (or bulge) in the line at Delville Wood near Longueval. The "Devil's Wood", as the soldiers came to call it, became another of the First World War's notorious killing grounds. (There is a major memorial there now to the South Africans who sustained horrendous casualties trying to defend the Wood.)

The 5th Batallion moved into trenches at the edge of the Wood on 21st August. There followed an "intense bombardment" of the Germans before a British attack on the 24th by the 14th Light Division, with the 5th KSLI in the centre of the line. They cleared some of the enemy from the Wood but became exposed and had to withdraw to a second line of trenches. Seven Officers and 197 other ranks were lost from the 5th Batallion in this one fight alone.

On the 28th, the 5th was back in the front line but struggled to defend their trenches due to "incessant rain and continuous heavy shelling". The military diary describes the 28th as being "particularly onerous" which, in normal English, means it was hellish.  The 5th were relieved on the 31st and rested for 11 days, returning to the "battle area" on 11th September.

In another of the main assaults of the Somme battle, two divisions advanced in a combined attack on 15th September. The Battle of Flers-Courcelette had begun. And Jack and his comrades would have witnessed a moment of military history on the opening day when the British first introduced tanks in warfare. Four tanks set off but three were "knocked out" straight away. The curiously-named Tank "Dolphin" reached Flers (see map below) before succumbing to a shell. Incredibly, the reports say that the tank was "carrying spare petrol in tins on the roof" which, one assumes, didn't give the occupants any chance of survival!

The 5th started the Battle of Flers-Courcelette from "York Alley" in the British trench system and skirted around Delville Wood (blue arrow) heading for Flers and Geudecourt. At first everything went well and they advanced two miles (quite something given the history of the Western Front). But they were held up north-east of Flers by a line of field guns and snipers. The Batallion dug-in at "Bulls Road" which turned out to be the limit of the advance. In the understated military writing-style of the official report the chronicler states that the hour before midday was "a very hectic one for the 5th KSLI".

The problem was that the troops on the 5th's right flank (white arrow on map), The Kings Royal Rifle Corps, were held up at Lesboeufs and "lost direction". The commanders were later criticised for not using the cavalry to break through towards Guedecourt where the Germans had not yet taken up positions. The whole attack stalled.

On 16th September, 2016 the 5th began to withdraw. On that day one officer and two other ranks were killed whilst leaving the battlefield. One of them was Jack. None of the three have identifiable graves and their sacrifice is recorded with the many thousands of others in that sad situation on the Thiepval Memorial. In Jack's case he is named as "J Reece".

The 4th Army Commander, General Rawlinson, sent a formal message:

Both in Delville Wood and in the attacks of 15th and 16th September the 14th Division displayed a fighting spirit and a dash which was worthy of the best traditions of the British Army whilst their discipline and self-sacrifice has been beyond praise.

When two daughters of one of Jack's brothers said they wanted to find out Jack's story their father became very angry and told them to desist. His one comment was that Jack was "no coward". Quite.

Coda

Earlier this year Linda and I stayed in Albert and visited some of the battlefield sites. As with other places on the Western Front it is hard to imagine the scale of the industrial carnage in this now peaceful farmland. 

There are some SHORT (!) videos to accompany this post (links below) where you can watch me cowering from the rain and mangling the pronunciation of the above villages.

We walked through the replanted Delville Wood to the edge to get as close to where Jack died as we could. The birdlife was in full throat and every now and again a deer would break cover and leap away through the undergrowth. No longer hell on earth - nature had won through and life had returned. 

Our thanks to the many people in Albert who made our stay so memorable.

Julian & Linda Saunders

YouTube Links:

Delville Wood, Somme: Part 1

Delville Wood, Somme: Part 2

Delville Wood, Somme: Part 3

From Tenbury to Thiepval

iancrowwmultimedia@gmail.com

Brum Sh*tty Council - Jobs for the Brothers and Sisters

There is one class of people that near-bankrupt Labour Birmingham City Council hate even more than motorists - private landlords. Put simply, the comrades would ban private property rental altogether if they had their way. As they can't do this, they do the next best thing aim to hit their enemies in the pocket.

Just as there are bent Labour Councillors so there are "rogue" landlords. No-one can doubt the misery a minority of these bastards cause, and so there is a case for "clamping-down" on the criminal end of the market.

Lest we forget, however, one of the worst "slum landlords" in Brum is not "private" at all but, er, Labour Birmingham City Council!

What the comrades have done is to force private landlords in 25 of Brum's sh*ttiest wards to pay £700 for a licence to operate (valid for 5 years). The so-called "Selective Licensing Scheme" - which is not exactly "selective" as it targets ALL landlords, good and bad, within the 25 sh*tholes - for the new Labour business tax - which apparently comes into operation this June. The obvious flaw in the Scheme is that all landlords are likely, quite rightly, to simply pass on the tax to their tenants by way of additional rent.

Labour is, of course, primarily funded by the trade unions (one reason Keir "Sir Woodenarse" Starmer is staying silent on the alleged rape of a Labour MP by a senior official of one of his biggest paymasters, the GMB Union.) Brum Labour Council actually says this in its terms and conditions of employment:

"Trade Union Membership - Access to New Starters"

In the opinion of Birmingham City Council, each employee should be a member of a trade union in order that collective bargaining in satisfactory and fully representative of all employees. The Council believes that it should promote the benefits of trade union membership to its new employees".

Local people are then forced to pay part of their Council Tax for the salaries of trade union officials via what is called "facility time". This allows the very same taxpayer-funded union officials to use our money to foment strikes that withdraw services many folk rely on, and even to meddle in industrial disputes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Council. Nice!

When I read newspaper reports about Labour's new Landlord Tax they stated that 130 (yes, one hundred and thirty) staff were to be assigned to "administer" the scheme in the 25 wards. That's an astonishing 5.2 pen-pushers PER WARD! Bureaucracy gone mad and a colossal cost to the City.

It gets worse. Fresh from losing multi-millions on the Commonwealth Games, the BCC website says that this will be 130 "newly-created" jobs for an already bloated and skint Council. And if the 130 are, as above, "encouraged" to join unions that is a massive thank you from Labour to the dinosaur bully boys and girls who fund their Party.

Still, as above, it's the tenants who will end up paying for this crony "sledgehammer to crack a nut" operation. And Brum Leader - let's see the annual figures on how much this Scheme is actually costing folk?

[If any of the new staff are thinking of joining the GMB Union they should heed the words of a 2001 Report which the Union itself commissioned. Leading Counsel investigated the vile organisation and stated that "bullying, misogyny, cronyism and sexual harassment are endemic within the Union". Non-white recruits might also care to note that the QC (now KC) described the top union officials as "white, male and stale" and added, "I am satisfied that the GMB is not a comfortable place to be for many employees and members from Black and minority ethnic groups". Labour Leader Keir Starmer's not bothered about this sort of thing, but maybe you should be before you hand over your money to thuggish unions?]

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Labour's Donations from Peter Hearn

Sky News recently banged on the door of a firm of accountants in Hertfordshire to establish why a Limited Company registered there - with no employees nor website - was the third largest donor to Labour MP's (after two trade unions). MPM Connect Limited is not strictly a shell company as it has healthy finances (it is said to be an "investment company", which is handy as the "person with significant control", entrepreneur Peter Hearn, doles out cash liberally to the likes of Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and Dan Jarvis. The three MP's have scored a stonking £345,217 since 2019 from the obliging Mr Hearn, a British citizen.

What struck me as odd, reading the articles via Sky and other sources, was how anxious the three MP's were to stress that the Company was UK registered. Perhaps, I wondered, they were conscious of the statements from their Party Leader, Keir "Sir Woodenarse" Starmer in the House of Commons in February, 2022 when the dead sheep berated unfettered overseas donations from shell companies and claimed that Labour would protect our democracy from the "flood of foreign money" drowning our politics [Hansard 23.02.22].

Curiously, Peter Hearn's Company was actually set up in a different name 20 days before he became a Director by (1) a posh firm of London Solicitors with strong connections to the "Socialist paradise" of Hong Kong, and (2) another member of the Hearn family who, whilst British, told Companies House he was "normally resident" in the, er, USA and gave an address in W23rd Street, New York. That's "foreign" isn't it?

The gone native New Yorker - who holds the Company's sole £1 share - changed his address for service to the Company's registered office address 3 years later - that address being the one also given at the time as Peter Hearn's home address.

No doubt Yvette, Wes and Dan will explain the convoluted Company set-up in due course.

Of course, Starmer himself is a puppet of Labour's major Union donors and is happy to take as much cash as possible from the GMB Union despite their appalling misconduct in recent times, including the allegation that a Labour MP was raped by a GMB official:

https://crowmultimedia.blogspot.com/2022/06/starmer-mumsnet-rape-misgogyny.html

Alas, the MSM haven't got round to investigating all that yet.

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

A Life in Pubs #2 - My 1980's Top Three!

Do you have three all-time favourite pubs? Back in the 80’s I did, but now I’m not so sure …

I first bought the Good Beer Guide in 1976, and obsessively “ticked-off” pubs in that and subsequent Guides. By the late 1980’s I would bore anyone who listened with my “top three” without hesitation, but boozers change - frequently not for the better. And I think it is necessary to visit establishments a number of times before awarding gold, silver and bronze to avoid unintentional bias - and this creates obvious difficulties where hostelries are distant from one’s home base.

There is always the danger of one’s perceptions being skewed by memories of particular wonderful occasions, and pubs can be remembered too affectionately through rose-tinted beer goggles. Pubs are not just bricks and mortar etc., and truly memorable visits are a communion of different notes coming together in perfect harmony. This is perhaps why many pub listicles sub-divide the national estate into “best pub with a view”, “best pub food” and so on.

It is possible to enjoy one aspect of the offering without others being up to snuff. I remember truly superb food in a particularly hideous pub in Buckinghamshire, and a truly amazing landlord in what I, ahem, imagine a tart’s boudoir to look like - incongruously set in rural Northumberland. The Scott Arms in Dorset has many good points, including surely one of the finest views from a pub in Britain, but that does not elevate it to the medal podium (although the nearby Square and Compass at Worth Matravers has to be a contender for top-three glory). To win the laurels there has to be a concatenation of elements that produce unqualified delight. In short, there must be nothing ghastly about these places.

I am really struggling to think of my current top trio. My “spiritual home” is the famous “Welly” (The Wellington, Birmingham) but I visit infrequently these days as central Brum is so, er, ghastly and depressing. I have had a long love-affair with London pubs and some on the Suffolk Coast, but can’t think of ones that merit top gongs. The Star in Bath must be right-up there (and is Camra 2022 Pub of the Year) but I have only visited once. The Cotswolds has some gorgeous inns, though most have morphed into “gastropubs” with gastromomical prices to boot. Yorkshire - including Leeds-  has been fertile territory (although I am ashamed to say that I have never visited the pub hotspot of Sheffield!) Derby has become a splendid real ale town, but doesn’t deserve top-three awards. Oh well, I suppose I’m just going to have to keep visiting alehouses until I can send up the white smoke again (and so please, dear readers, let me have your own nominations!)

But what of the 1980’s choice? Here they are:

1   The Olde Ship at Seahouses, Northumberland;

2   The Free Press, Cambridge;

3   The Falkland Arms, Great Tew, Oxfordshire.

We had two trips to - and stayed at - The Olde Ship in the 1980’s (bizarrely meeting my boss - pictured left - from Brum there on one occasion!) The small but perfectly-formed bar, awash with nautical memorabilia, was simply wonderful and the icing on the cake was Allen Glenn, an amazing, friendly, and workaholic landlord. Alas I have not been back since and so after a period of some 35+ years am unable to comment on the place now (and I note that there have seemingly been changes of ownership after the Glenn family sold up - including one towards the end of last year).

The Free Press WAS an amazing pub in the 1980’s. Whatever time of day I went in, the place was packed with locals and folk from the University with a marvellous “flow” of interesting punters (no punt intended) throughout some often lengthy sessions. Alas the place was “refurbed” and not for the better. The last time I visited the first words of greeting were: “Are you eating with us?” - five words that usually have me foaming at the mouth before I have even touched the froth of a well-served pint. I shall try it again next time I am in town, but fear that relegation will be confirmed.

The Falkland Arms is chocolate-box perfect with wisteria flowering against honeyed-stone. Until recent times the whole village was in a time warp, but the local estate which owned it sold it off and gentrification proceeded apace. My wife and I used to particularly like visiting in mid-winter -  enjoying the company of locals by candle and firelight. A truly magical place.

But the dear old pub - still looking gorgeous - has been extended somewhat and a relatively recent summer visit found it crowded with loud, self-important, Oxford academic types. Expensive food has become the dominant feature of the offering - even muscling out what used to be fantastic, if pricey, ploughman’s/woman’s lunches. 

A pub still worth visiting, but I fear the “top-three” status has long gone.

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Teddy (Kennedy) v Jerry (Corbyn) - Battle of the Shaggers

You wait ages for a biography of Edward "Teddy" Kennedy and then two come along together! Both - Ted Kennedy by John Farrell (Penguin Press) and Against the Wind by Neal Gabler (Crown) - are expertly reviewed in the current edition of The Economist*.

The review brought to mind similarities and differences between "The Lion of the Senate" and "The Weasel of Westminster" aka Britain's parliamentary super-sponger, Jerry "Jeremy" Corbyn . Firstly, both were born into privileged backgrounds. OK, so Jerry only enjoyed dull, provincial, comfort in Wiltshire and Shropshire rather than the glamorous yachting and partying world of the Kennedy clan but, like the New Englander, he started with many advantages in life.

Secondly, the pair boast reputations as serial shaggers, enjoying erections as much as elections. I will leave it to you, dear readers, to decide what that says about them but I have to snigger when Jerry's crazed pack of unemployed Tweeters keep referring to his "honesty and integrity" as these are not virtues one normally associates with priapic philanderers!

Ted - Smart and Savvy

Thirdly, they have both enjoyed longevity in their respective legislatures. Senator Ted was in the upper house for nearly 47 years. MP Jerry has notched up 39 years in the Commons so far. But now comes the point of divergence since their political records are markedly different.

Kennedy was a politician to his finger tips. A schmoozer and networker he also put in the hard miles to get things done whereas Corbyn is a weirdo loner who has achieved absolutely zilch. Despite his wealth and good fortune - and his personal failings - the American saw acting in the interests of the less fortunate as a moral imperative. The Englishman simply prats around on demos and picket lines. The US Democrat was diligent on Senate matters whereas the quondam UK Labour member is notoriously lazy.

Jerry - Scruffy and Lavvy

Ted was a champion of liberalism who worked to advance progressive ideals. Jerry wallows in a warped philosophical and economical hotch-potch from 150 years ago which has no relevance to our contemporary lives. The Economist lists some of Kennedy's ACTUAL real-life enlightened achievements - expanded voting rights, wider aid to the poor, and increased healthcare access for children. Contrast this with thick as mince Corbyn who has actually done f*** all - for "the poor" or anyone else.

The stats are damning. In the Senate, Ted sponsored 2,552 pieces of legislation and co-sponsored nearly 7,000 others. In the House of Commons, Corbyn has not been responsible in any way for a SINGLE piece of legislation. That's a big fat zero in 39 years (and yet he continues to rake in his generous pay and gold-plated pension payments from UK taxpayers!)

Incredibly, Corbyn's claque claims that The Gammon was somehow responsible for bringing peace to Northern Ireland - a preposterous lie. Just take a look at the indices of the history and political books since 1983 and see if you can find "Corbyn" therein. You won't find him there in respect of Northern Ireland nor, indeed, anything else. His only role in The Troubles was to support Irish Republicanism in general, and terrorism in particular. Whilst there are legitimate arguments for the former stance, few accept that the latter was morally justifiable - or even helpful. 

Having Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness round for tea and bigging-up the balaclava brigade does not constitute playing a meaningful part in the settlement process whereas Ted Kennedy (and a number of other US politicians) worked tirelessly for peace - often without Corbyn's pathetic taste for grandstanding.

Leaving aside the personal baggage (which is quite an ask) Kennedy was a doer and Corbyn, er, isn't. I will leave you with a quote (alas unattributed) in respect of The Sponger:

"A left-wing Little Englander, an abrasively nostalgic memorabilia junkie, the left's answer to the late Duke of Edinburgh."

* Please read The Economist review. It is behind a paywall but if you subscribe (as you really should) you can find the current issue here:

https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-11-12

Jerry and "that" wreath!

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com

Scope charity blows over £6k of donor cash on Tory attack ad

Disability charity Scope have finally admitted that they used £6,184.77 of donors' hard-earned on a crass and pathetic Tory-attack ad at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham (2nd-5th October):

Of course, Scope are likely to want increased taxpayer support for the disabled, but even allowing for the bullsh*t factor in advertising, this grotesque effort is false and offensive. Whilst lobby groups may want more for their special interest groups, it is patently untrue that the Government ignores the disabled and doesn't funnel substantial sums of our money to this (deserving) section of society. The actual wording, "We worked harder on this ad than the Government has for disabled people", is a patent lie and a complaint has been made to the Advertising Standards Authority. 

There is a lunatic fringe who simply "hate the Tories" but the fact is that many Tory Ministers and other Conservative politicians work extremely hard for "the disabled" - politically and, frequently, personally. The advert is intended to give offence to them, and the siting of the advert at the Conference was deliberately wounding and provocative.

Note the use of the word "we" in the ad, which suggests that a team of morons were responsible for this abomination, and the decision to take money from Scope's donors to pay for it. I suspect that the "we" are a group of men since Liz Truss (remember her?) is shown when she has never held any ministerial position in the Department of Health & Social Care. This is a deeply misogynistic attack from a Charity that purports to promote "equality".

It is hardly surprising that well-paid leftie charity types are willing to use other people's money on political stunts of this kind. The sector is packed with them as they are unable to find such well-paid employment elsewhere.

Scope's last published accounts show that at least FOUR of its "top executives" earn in excess of £100k per annum and face no "cost of living crisis" themselves. In the last financial year expenses were such that only 73% of funds - including donations from the public - were actually spent of Scope's charitable work. Admin and pay accounted for a stonking 27% of funds. Charity begins at home.

The Government has properly diverted colossal sums from taxpayers to the disabled via a number of benefits. In May this year a further £1.3 BILLION over three years was announced in employment support for the disabled and those with health conditions alone.

To say that the Government does not work hard for the disabled is, as above, a lie as Scope knows only too well. In the latest accounts Scope itself boasted that THEY organised a meeting for welfare claimants to discuss issues with the Minister of State for Disabled People. Further, and more particularly, Scope itself was a major recipient of Covid furlough and recovery grants from the, er, nasty Tories. The last accounts show restricted central government (taxpayers') funds given to Scope of £568,000 - over half a million quid! Gross hypocrisy on top of the big lie in the ad.

Of course, we would all be better off - including the less-abled - if loopholes were closed and individuals and companies actually paid headline rates of tax in the first place. It is noteworthy that Scope Trustees decided to take over £6k from the disabled and give it to Ocean Outdoor UK Limited instead. In their latest filed accounts Ocean state that had they paid the 19% rate of Corporation Tax (to be increased to 25%) in their profitable last financial year, they would have paid us (via the UK Government) £778,000 whereas they were actually able to reduce this sum by various adjustments to just £275,000 - LESS than 7% of taxable profits!

Ocean was able to claim, inter alia, a tax reduction of £77,000 for the racy-sounding "group relief". What, what? The fact is that Scope's pals at Ocean avoid some UK tax via good old Caribbean tax havens. The "ultimate controlling party and ultimate parent" company of the UK operation is Ocean Outdoor Limited of Kingston Chambers, PO Box 173, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands (former and current home of pirates and privateers).

Scope have been tardy in admitting that it was over £6k they nicked from their cause to give to Ocean though refuse to apologise. It is not enough that "lessons are learned" and some action must be taken here.

If the Government still owe money to Scope they should consider freezing payment pending a full investigation. Scope itself should start disciplinary proceeding against the perps behind this sick stunt (which might have the added benefit of slightly reducing the 27% wage/admin bill).

Meanwhile the Trustees (as listed on Scope's website) behind this ill-conceived political attack are Robin Millar, Mark Johnstone, Matthew Johnston, Donna Glover, Alex Massey, Zeinab Chaudhry, Joanne Hall, Tariq Khan, and Simon Godfrey. These nine people should reimburse Scope for the £6,184.77 squandered - that's £687.20 each. We invite them to contact us when they have done so and we shall be pleased to let you all know.

crowmultimedia@gmail.com

Starmer, Mumsnet, "Rape" & Misgogyny

Keir Starmer and bourgeois private company Mumsnet make strange, er, bedfellows but both suck up to an organisation mired in scandal, allegations of rape, proven misogyny, racism, misuse of funds and widespread drunkenness - The GMB Union. Both, in their different ways, seem to be ignoring reality in the hope of profiting from the connection with the sleaziest Union in Britain!

Keir "Sir Woodenarse" Starmer, the "Leader" of The Labour Party, spent more time in self-isolation during Covid than your average medieval hermit. Nevertheless, he has not found the time to reply to our open letter to him, sent over 18 months ago.

In December, 2020, we reported on the very serious allegation that a senior official of the GMB Union had "raped" a female Labour MP and included our letter to Starmer in our blog post:

http://crowmultimedia.blogspot.com/2020/12/gmb-union-official-raped-labour-mp-claim.html

Other tales of lurid activity also emerged involving the GMB "brothers and sisters".

The mainstream media are still ignoring this, and other GMB stories, but good old Private Eye is still battling away to get at the truth. It has exposed other wrongdoing notably the widespread use of Union credit cards for the purchase of industrial quantities of alcohol - in other words the dues of GMB members have funded mega booze-ups for the Union officials. 

Meanwhile there is total silence from Starmer who. of course, relies very heavily on funding and support from, er, the GMB Union!

Given the very serious nature of the allegations, the sordid GMB had Karon Monaghan QC report on its alleged "casting couch culture" and other unsavoury misconduct, but specifically excluded her from investigating the "rape" allegation. Nevertheless, her Report makes explosive and shocking reading. If you are ever thinking of giving your hard-earned dues to this appalling organisation, please read it before you join! If you haven't got time now, some of the "highlights" are set out below!

https://www.gmb.org.uk/sites/default/files/gmb_investigation_report_2020.pdf

Monaghan reported that the GMB is "institutionally sexist" and that:

"Bullying, misogyny, cronyism and sexual harassment are endemic within the GMB."

"The culture in the GMB is one of heavy drinking and late-night socialising, salacious gossip and a lack of professionalism." [Sounds like Starmer's booze and curry night in Durham except, of course, he claims he was working!]

"When women do succeed in achieving more senior roles, it is often said that they have "slept their way to the top""

"The evidence I've heard indicates that there are, and have been, regional secretaries who maintain power largely through bullying, threats and victimisation and by creating a climate of fear." [At the time of the Report, all the regional secretaries were male.]

 "… The sheer volume of examples of bullying, threats and victimisation that were provided to me by so many of those who contacted me makes it very clear that a large number of regional secretaries have behaved and do behave in this way."

But she found women employees and reps were too scared to complain:

"Making complaints of sexual harassment [in the GMB] is anyway so difficult and the risk of retribution so great."

And so she went on:

"The GMB is a very masculine organisation in which misogyny, sexual harassment, bullying and cronyism are endemic."

"As it was put to me, the GMB "has a woman problem" ... "

"Unsurprisingly, given that environment, working relationships can be poisonous and the environment a "horrible" one in which to work. One witness after another spoke malignly about others within the GMB, often speaking about others in precisely the way they themselves were being spoken about."

"Meetings can be conducted in an "aggressive" and "testosterone-fuelled" way and a "bully-boy" atmosphere prevails. I heard much evidence of cronyism ..."

Monaghan QC also dealt with the booze culture (often paid for by screwing Union members):

"I also heard from one witness after another that alcohol was a significant feature of the GMB's culture. I was told that there is an "ingrained" drinking culture at GMB ... Alcohol plays a significant role in perpetuating bad behaviour. This is so particularly at [the annual] Congress where free alcohol in varying quantities is available. I heard examples of abusive conduct and sexual harassment at Congress by those who had drunk excessively. Congress is a "boozy affair" ... A number of those I spoke to pointed out that some women like drinking and drinking to excess. Of course that is quite true, but this "boozy" culture is very much a masculine one ... I also heard of external sponsorships of free bars and even of gifts of the most expensive Premier League football tickets (corporate seats and even boxes) again promoting a very masculine image of the GMB. There can be no reason to accept the sponsorship of free bars and certainly not free football tickets for a small number of senior men."

And as if rampant sexism and misogyny is not bad enough:

"I was also contacted by a number of people from Black and minority ethnic groups. They recognise that this investigation is concerned with sexual harassment but wanted to draw to my attention the very real and serious problems that exist for members and employees and Black and minority ethnic groups ... I am satisfied that the GMB is not a comfortable place to be for many employees and members from Black and minority ethnic groups … At the moment it [the GMB] is "white, male and stale"."

Yes folks, the skint and sick  Starmer Labour Party take cash from an organisation where sexual harassment is common:

"Sexual harassment is common in the GMB. Examples of sexual harassment I heard about included touching hair, leering, commenting on body shape and clothes, placing hands around a woman's waist, staring at a woman's breasts or "tits", propositioning young women, "sloppy kisses", "lip kisses", "sticking a tongue" in a woman's ear, touching of knees, bottoms and hips, hugs, and slapping of a backside. Sometimes sexual harassment is used as a form of bullying with examples given to me of men deliberately sexually harassing women in public to humiliate and embarrass them. I have also heard of more serious sexual assaults."

And who IS this man? Obviously one person was widely named on social media. Why was this not investigated?

"There were lots of rumours [about] a senior man …"

"Predatory"!

"I heard that there was a general "predatory" attitude to women in the GMB ... This all feeds the demeaning and misogynistic narrative that women who do succeed in securing senior roles in the GMB have done so through having sex with a senior man ... I can find no basis for these allegations. The repeated suggestion that women who are making their way through the GMB ranks are doing so as a result of having giving sexual favours to senior men is indicative of the prevalent misogynistic culture within the GMB." 

The women of the Union did not complain - apparently for fear of retribution. But how can any union acting in this truly horrific way purport to act for its members - particularly, of course, its female ones? The QC put it better than we can:

"I have made a number of recommendations directed at achieving change, but the reality is that the practices and culture of the GMB are so entrenched that a complete transformation is required … if the GMB is a hostile environment for its women's staff and members, there seems little reason to believe that it will function to serve women in the Labour market and society more widely. The GMB should remind itself that one of its constitutional aims is the achievement and maintenance of equal pay for women, the promotion of equal opportunities within the Union, the workplace and society in general, and the ending of discrimination against people because of their sex, race, nationality, religious beliefs, disability, age, marital status or sexuality. It has little chance of realising those aims without a seismic structural and cultural shift."

"Sir Woodenarse" is a barrister by trade, and so used to talking for whoever pays him. Buy he had to cravenly rely on GMB votes at one Labour Party Conference to win support against the Corbynite crazies, and so he is clearly never going to upset his Union "bosses" and paymasters. OK he is not the first politician to exhibit signs of gross hypocrisy, but one problem with this crashing bore is that he frequently boasts to the House of Commons about his experience in "prosecuting hundreds of rape cases."

The bouffant braggart can't resist any opportunity to tell the House of Commons that he was formerly the Director of Public Prosecutions as this small extract of examples shows:

Add: 18/12/21: "I ran the Crown Prosecution Service ..." 

On 17th March, 2021 Starmer asked the Prime Minister at PMQs why rape convictions and prosecutions were so low? During the exchanges, Sir Woodenarse stated, "victims of rape are being failed".  But is his Labour MP colleague and alleged rape victim being failed by him and senior GMB MP's, Rayner, Ashworth and others, who have remained silent about their colleague's alleged ordeal at the hands of the Union man?

As shown above, Starmer just happened to mention again - yawn - that he had been the DPP for five years and he added, in another of his oft-used but supercilious utterances, that he didn't need "lectures" about rape prosecutions. Er, clearly you DO matey!

Whilst he says nothing publicly about the alleged rape of a close colleague, and relies on a deeply misogynistic Union for his own political survival, he moans to the PM about an "epidemic of violence against women and girls". A classic case of double-standards from a man who purports to be a latter-day saint.

But the allegations themselves are confusing. Was there one alleged GMB "rape" or two? The original whistle-blower referred to a single serious sexual assault, but it now transpires that the former General Secretary of the GMB, "Sir" Paul Kenny, wrote this on social media about an alleged "rape" (exact, unedited, transcript):

"In the myriad of outrageous and appalling social behaviour, Date Rape needs a Strong fresh Light brought into play ... I heard recently of a man who arranged to meet a woman they knew well for a quick catch up drink. An every day occurence and not one to arouse suspicion or a lack of trust. From taking that drink to waking up in the Man's flat bruised and feeling like death warmed up it began to dawn on this confident woman what might have happened. A medical test that morning confirmed her worst fears and has changed her life forever ... This incident I am told involved a figure in the public eye ... I only hope the truth will out and a sexual predator is put behind Bars."

We have tried to contact Sir Paul without success. In the sick world of trade unionism, where nepotism rules supreme, his son, Warren Kenny, was temporarily Acting General Secretary of the GMB, and so we also sent a letter to him for onward transmission to his father. No response was forthcoming.

We asked Sir Paul, - also via Warren - if his social media story related to the original GMB whistle-blower's allegation? If not, was the alleged perpetrator of this separate incident also a GMB employee? Was the alleged victim - someone in the public eye - also a Labour MP? Surely, even given the miasma of sleaze surrounding Starmer's puppet-masters, there isn't a SECOND rape allegation involving the benighted Union? Why aren't our craven mainstream media asking Kenny to clarify all this as we have been attempting to do?

As far as we can tell, the Police have taken no action in respect of the original whistle-blower's allegation. Perhaps "a former DPP" in the public eye should have a word? Has Starmer encouraged his colleague to report the alleged incident and, if not, why not given his pronouncements on prosecuting perpetrators? What does he actually know about all this? Is there a Labour cover-up to try to protect the Party's paymaster Union with pressure on the alleged MP victim to keep quiet? Why aren't the mainstream media asking him, Rayner, Ashworth and Co. about all this as the original whistle-blower claims they are fully cognisant of the lurid details (they won't communicate with us).

And, given the appalling revelations of misogyny etc. in the Monaghan Report, why is Starmer's Labour Party continuing to accept huge sums of money from the GMB? Imagine the Twitter storm if a Tory donor acted in such a truly appalling way? In a heartbeat the likes of the imbecilic Kay Burley would be demanding that payments should cease.

If you are a taxpayer reading this, how do YOU feel about the State handing the GMB huge sums every month by way of "facility time" payments from YOUR taxes. Why exactly does a bullying, sexist and racist Union deserve money from the public purse? (The Government please note!)

Incidentally, we cannot trace any details of the amount the Union paid to Monaghan QC which must have been a very significant sum - again ripped-off from their feeble, biddable, members. And, by the way, the Union went on to commission yet another QC's report from Shona Jolly following all the above, and so the pathetic members will have been caught on that financial hook too. 

And what about commercial organisations backing such a sh*tbag organisation? Normally there are social media campaigns against companies when they, or their paid celebs, "cross the line", but there have been no howls of outrage against Mumsnet - a sort of John Lewis of pregnancy and parenting.

Mumsnet is a media and campaigning Company aiming at those women who become "parents". It is a very slick operation (even getting a much-publicised interview with Bonking Boris recently) which operates as a private limited Company generating substantial profits through advertising, "insight" and ecommerce. Its gross profit figures are sensational (though dipped slightly in the last published accounts). The downturn meant a decrease in the workforce and the wage bill - something one might think the GMB would normally be raging about in their non-real-world union bubble. The Company continues to also make post-tax profits (surely, another black mark from "anti-capitalist" Labour and the Unions) and in 2019 paid out £5.5m in dividends (to a holding Company).

This Company markets itself as being a thoroughly wholesome and determinedly middle-class outfit. It makes no bones that it is in the business of "providing products in collaboration with parents" ie. flogging them "stuff". The name of the game is internet and social media "hits", dwell/engagement time and, ultimately, money. As with most of this type of online company it is forever trying to increase the "eyes" peering at its multimedia offerings. Which is presumably why they thought associating with a Union which - incredibly given the horror stories above - has a relatively high percentage of women members (although Private Eye reports, unsurprisingly, that members are leaving the GMB in droves).

Mumsnet seems to claim to represent educated women, capable of "engaging" yet fiercely standing up for their rights. These are women who are comfortably off - the types who read reviews on the site before buying "the best pushchair" etc. They seem to be the very antithesis of poorly-educated union members, mostly motivated by jealousy and greed. The modus operandi of trade unions is bullying rather than "engagement". Whilst the QC excused the women employees and reps of the GMB for cowering before, admittedly monstrous, men and failing to speak out, the fact remains that they couldn't look after themselves let alone their members.

Union members generally have no entrepreneurial nous (usually hating trade and successful enterprise) and a much higher percentage of them have been with the same employer for more than 10 years than employees free of union domination. The average age of union members ever increases - surely not the demographic targeted by Mumsnet?

Yet, despite all this, the GMB has been boasting of its tie up with the Company! They claimed to have "teamed up" with Mumsnet to provide "a mini-series of online advice clinics". How on earth can a Company which claims to empower women work with the GMB after the Monaghan report - it just beggars belief? The mind boggles, given the examples set out above, on what advice these grotesques are giving to young(ish), fecund, women!

Of course, there is always the possibility that Mumsnet paid the GMB to be associated with them but that doesn't bear thinking about given the lily-white reputation of the former and the degenerate notoriety, following the allegations and the Monaghan Report, of the latter? Whatever the position, the capitalist Company decided to sup with a real devil. Why?

Of course, Labour are usually quick to complain about the remuneration packages of company directors, especially departing ones. Given the shocking findings of the Monaghan Report alone, one might imagine that the (then) General Secretary, Tim Roache, would have been immediately dismissed with only his contractual compensation payable. But the Union bosses yet again decided to f*** their members and, according to Private Eye, allowed Roache to retire on the grounds of "ill-health" with a tax-free lump sum of £500,000, a car of his choice 50% paid for by GMB's members, an annual pension of £60,000 per annum and a £100,000 "testimonial"! We have scoured Google to find Sir Woodenarse's condemnation of this outrage - without success. We wonder why lol?

iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com