GL-W's WEBlog

The views, reprints & thoughts of Greg Lance-Watkins

Archive for the ‘NORTH Dr Richard’ Category

Brexit & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 08/04/2014

Brexit & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

The Brexit Prize & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute as it seems to have not bothered reading entries that were not by their predetermined inside track planned winners – issuing misleading statements to ensure serious writers were put at a disadvantage to ensure their chosen candidates became the winners!

The pompous arrogance and the utter hubris of the organisation and its pre-determined winners just make a farce of the prize – whoever they had chosen to win!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

Brexit: the IEA chairman speaks

Richard North, 08/04/2014
I spent most of yesterday corresponding with Philip Booth of the IEA, trying to ascertain from him why the Brexit prize competitors were given a set of very explicit instructions, while their submissions appear to have been judged on very different and hitherto undeclared criteria.

I tested my correspondence out on a few friends, just as a check, to make sure I wans’t being too hard. Although it was evident I am angry, the tone was described as “measured”. Amongst other things, I had wanted to know why the rules had also been changed so that a new short-list of six had been created, after the submission deadline.

The particular interest for the competitors not shortlisted (and there are a number of us thus concerned), is that the IEA is making a public statement that there are at least six better submissions than ours. For me – I would not presume to speak for the others – I regard that as “professionally damaging”. And it was not something any of us signed up for.

Anyhow, as the exchanges multiplied through the day, it was evident that I was getting nowhere. Eventually, in the early evening, I brought the exchange to a halt, without having achieved anything at all, not the slightest concession, nor scintilla of understanding.

The thing about these exchanges, though, is while you are getting the polite brush-off, you rarely get an inkling of what they are really thinking. But, while Booth had asked for a private exchange, he was in fact copying in colleagues and sundry others. At his end, the exchange was anything but private – it was being broadcast throughout the IEA. They might just as well have put it on the Tannoy.

Then I received yet another e-mail, one with the same header used for the Booth correspondence, but from a different address, one [then] unknown to me. The writer, incidentally, had copied his reply to two others (text published below).

The e-mail, it turns out, was from professor emeritus David Myddelton of Cranfield University, educated at Eton and Harvard Business School. His cv (top) says he has been chairman of the IEA since 2001. Although he is a reasonably frequent speaker on the “eurosceptic” circuit, he is obviously no great fan of yours truly, although I cannot think of anything specific I’ve done to offend him.

Nevertheless, thanking Booth for sending our correspondence to him, he grandly declared that: “Richard North’s attitude is disappointing”. Then says the professor emeritus, a man who obviously must know about such things: “He has written on this and similar topics so much that I cannot believe he spent a huge amount of time on his entry”.

So, this is the first stage of the standard denigration technique: “North” can’t have spent much time on his submission so [implied] it was probably crap anyway.

Then the boot goes in. My “measured” tone reminds the revered professor “of my ten-year-old grand-daughter – who likes to boast that she did very well on an exam, before the results indicate that she scored, say, 10/40!” Does this run in the family? One can only wonder.

But, from his careful and measured study of the evidence, there comes the learned professor’s considered view of the entire issue: “It is not North’s failure to be judged to have finished in the top six entries that might hurt his ‘professional reputation'”, declares the great professor, “but his petulant and bad-tempered response to the result”. He should have bent over and taken his punishment, is the sub-text.

Then the knife goes in, making it clear they are not actually going to address any of the points “North” makes. Oh no! Says Myddelton: “I hope you and Mark [Littlewood, IEA director general], and indeed anyone else connected with the Brexit Prize, will manage to avoid a public spat with Richard North”.

“There would seem to be nothing to be gained”, Myddleton adds, “and potentially quite a bit to be lost”. We would not, after all, want to concede that he might have a point, so let’s not give him any opportunities, is the sub-text here. We couldn’t possibly have him be seen to be right.

A little time later, though, I got another e-mail, from the same professor Myddelton:
Dear Richard,

I copied you in by mistake on my recent e-mail to Philip Booth and Mark Littlewood about the Brexit Prize. Sorry about that.

I should perhaps add that my role as Chairman of the IEA Trustees is non-executive, and I’ve had no part in the organisation of the Brexit prize.

All the best,

David
Well, cheers Dave! I actually spent over 700 hours on researching and writing the submission, with personal visits to both Norway and Iceland, where I interviewed senior politicians, trade representatives and others, to give first-hand information to go into the report.

But, Dave, you are also dismissing a huge amount of time put forward by EU Referendum readers, and the huge help given by The Boiling Frog and others, who were also just as keen to have a fair competition, those whom you have now so casually insulted. But that doesn’t matter – they’re only plebs who didn’t go to Eton.

Despite that, I then wrote to him about the submission of which he had been so dismissive: “You will not have read it of course”, I ventured. These very clever people never do … they have the wonderful gift of divining the quality of such things without needing to read them. Thus, I observed: “You are undoubtedly far too clever and grand and could not be expected to soil your magnificent brain with such material”. And we couldn’t have him actually learning anything.

“However”, I added, “I must really thank you for such an illustrative example of what the other half think of us plebs. I am sure my readers are going hugely to enjoy your perceptive analysis”.

I will upload the correspondence with Booth, and post a link tomorrow, for those of you who want to read the earlier exchange. But isn’t it refreshing when the mask slips and you find out what they really think about you, and what they are really saying! For all their airs and graces and their fine words, the truth will out. But how sad, the message is always the same: “know thine place, pleb!”

Whatever did we do before the internet, and learned professors who press the wrong buttons? But whatever made me think I was ever going to get a fair deal from the IEA?

To view the original of this posting CLICK HERE
Further reading on The BREXIT Prize:
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr. | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/03/2014

BREXIT Last Shortlist & The Way Forward

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Hi,

based on having read Dr. Richard North’s BREXIT submission in full some time ago I felt it was by far the most likely paper to win the BREXIT Prize.

It was detailed, factual and remarkably well researched with literally 100s of sourced documents collated to make a very comprehensive and well informed submission.

That , as Richard announced on his blog which I have featured below, he has not been shortlisted in the final six leaves me with two different thoughts, the first of which is that I am really looking forward to reading those last six submissions and particularly the winner as their submissions must be incredibly inovative and hugely grounded in both law, politics and even the un sccience of economics to have surpased Richard’s submission.

My second reaction, which sadly I fear will prove right, is that Richard’s detailed and inovative submission has far outclassed the other submissions and has proved embarrassing to some of the judges in that it proved challenging to understand in its comprehensive handling and very detailed understanding of not just the EU but the new world of global politics and power. Further that there is a strong possibility that Richard’s submission slaughters the holy cows of misunderstanding of the facts held by some amongst the judges.

I can but hope my fears are not realised and the winner has presented an inovative, practical and informed solution to the challenges posed by the brief of the prize intentions.

I look forward with some concern to 08-Apr-2014 and the results but though my knowledge of all of the judges is limited there are some very large loopholes in the impartiality of the judges – not least that Roger Bootle has recently written and published his own solution to the problems which on just one reading seemed to miss all too many points making it largely unworkable and clearly being so absorbed by economics had little relevance to the realities of disassociation from the EU for these United Kingdoms.

The clash of the views of the judges may well have tainted the validity of their decision making process – unlike Richard I shall await the results with baited breath!

 

BREXIT: entirely unsurprising

 Wednesday 26 March 2014

000a IEA-026 Brexit.jpg

As indicated in my overnight piece, our “Brexit” submission did not make it to the final six. Instead, I got a bland, patronising note from the IEA press person (above), a classic example of rank bad manners. Given the effort all of us put into the competition, at the very least we should have been sent a personal e-mail from the chairman of the judging panel.

Although I could have used the money, not to be included is actually a relief. It frees me from the constraints of the competition and allows me to return to the debate. With that in mind, I am able to publish my submission here (.pdf 98 pages), and will work up some shorter essays for the blog, based on the content. We are also planning a dedicated website, to explore the wider issues involved.

In terms of the content, I feel my single, most important contribution is the observation that “Brexit” is not a single event, but a process. It must be a series of ongoing strategies which allow for a FLexible response and Continuous development.  Thus “Brexit” became “FLexCit”.

The IEA has now issued a press release nominating the six finalists, and the award ceremony will be held on 8 April in London.

Richard North 26/03/2014

Here are details of The IEA’s BREXIT Prize as it moves forward:

The Institute of Economic Affairs is delighted to announce the final six candidates for the IEA Brexit Prize. The Rt Hon Lord Lawson will be awarding the €100,000 prize to the winning entry outlining a blueprint for Britain after the EU on 8 April.

Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third best entries, as judged by the competition’s final judging panel. First prize is €100,000, second prize is €10,000 and third prize is €5,000. There will be a special prize of €5,000 for the best entry from an individual aged 30 or under. The winning entries will be published by the IEA. Judges-decisions are final.

Final shortlist:

·       Rory Broomfield and Iain Murray

·       Prof Stephen Bush

·       Ben Clements

·       Tim Hewish

·       Iain Mansfield

·       Daniel Pycock

Commenting on the release of the final shortlist, Mark Littlewood, Director General at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

“The Brexit prize is an essential and timely contribution as we sit at a crossroads regarding our future relationship with both the EU and the rest of the world. Rather than focusing on the pluses and minuses of membership, we urgently need to address how the UK should arrange its affairs if a referendum triggered a Brexit. These final six entries will be key in providing the much needed intellectual backdrop for this.”

Judging panel

·       Nigel Lawson (Chairman), The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer

·       David Starkey, British constitutional historian and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London

·       Prof. Philip Booth (Facilitator), Institute of Economic Affairs and Cass Business School

·       Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics, a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. (Advisor and non-voting member)

·       Tim Frost, a governor of the LSE and director of Markit and Cairn Capital

·       Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and editor of The House Magazine

·       Prof. Martin Ricketts, Professor of Economic Organisation at the University of Buckingham

·       Dr. Stephen Davies, Institute of Economic Affairs

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, IEA, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr. | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

#G0654* – Dr. Richard NORTH gets an accurate review!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 15/06/2012

#G0654* – Dr. Richard NORTH gets an accurate review!
.

Hi,

good to see Richard getting some of the acclaim he so richly deserves for the accuracy of his research and the courage to follow, expose and present the facts – whether popular or not.
https://i1.wp.com/www.eureferendum.com/images/Durham.jpg
Having watched the progress of developement of the book from an aim to commemorate and then through research the progressive surprise that became the core of the revelations of the book.

The novel manner of developing the book and drawing out the facts to form the well cross referenced detail in the book was interesting for a serious history book, providing detail through the use of the internet and the values of blogging.

Well done Richard.

Never was so little owed . . .

The Many Not The Few The Many Not The Few
As you grow up, you learn that some of the heroes that you believed in as a child were just myths or fairy stories. The blunt truth is that Roy of the Rovers did not play for a real team called The Rovers – he was just a comic book hero. And so it is with the Battle of Britain

IF you are a child of the early post-war years who re-enacted dogfights with your toy Spitfires over the bomb damage, it may come as a shock to learn that the reality is that the battle was not won by “the Few” in the skies of the south-east, no matter what Winston Churchill said.
It was about the many, and it was about the whole country.
Political scientist, author and renowned eurosceptic Dr Richard North was surprised to discover that history was wrong when he started a blog to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the battle in 2010.
His postings did not seem to fit the established view of history.
His new book, The Many Not The Few: The Stolen History of the Battle of Britain, has grown out of that blog. It is controversial, debunking what he sees as a myth that Britain was saved by a handful of fighter pilots, brave as they may have been.

Next Tuesday, at Waterstone’s in Durham City, he presents a free lecture on his theories.
It was Churchill who was the first myth-maker about the battle, saying on August 20, 1940: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
But so many were involved in winning the battle. For example, the country relied on coal to fuel its industry and its war effort. That coal was mined in the North-East by Bevin Boys and transported by colliers down the North Sea coast – known as “E-Boat Alley” – to the London Docks.

Not only did these mariners have to contend with the Germans, but they were at the mercy of the weather. One company alone lost 13 colliers on this run.
Churchill’s comments suggest that the few were just fighting the war in the Home Counties. Yet some of the first German bombs to hit England were in the South Bank Road area of Middlesbrough, and in June 1940, bombs fell on the Transporter Bridge.
On August 15, German Air Fleet 15 began raiding the north of England from its bases in Stavanger, Norway, and Aalborg, Denmark. Most of the targets lay between the Tyne and the Humber and German aircraft had to fly 400 to 450 miles to reach them.
The first wave of bombers was intercepted off the Farne Islands by 12 Spitfires from RAF Acklington in Northumberland.
The German bombers had planned to fly across the coast south of the Tyne to attack the North Yorkshire airfields, but they made a navigational error. Spitfires, assisted by Hurricanes, broke up the bombers, but some still managed to hit Newcastle and Sunderland until they were forced home after British reinforcements came from RAF Catterick and RAF Usworth.
A second wave of German bombers that night crossed the coast at Flamborough Head and caused severe damage to RAF Driffield, although many bombers were shot down.
These were the first of many raids in the north.
So all conceivable occupations were involved in the battle, as were civilians in all parts of the country – Little Burdon and Bishopton, villages on the outskirts of Darlington, were hit by high explosive bombs in August 1940 at the height of the Battle of Britain.
But does it matter if history has got it wrong? Dr North says it does because it alters our whole reading of the war.
The traditional view is that “the Few” saved the many from a military conquest by the Germans. But what if Adolf Hitler was really targetting the many, not the Few?
What if he was not trying to win a military battle involving the Few, but he was really trying to win over the hearts and minds of the many?
What if his real aim was not to defeat the Few, but to persuade the many that Britain should be neutral and withdraw from the war?
Churchill, of course, needed the brave Few to be a beacon to inspire all the British people to take up the war effort; Hitler just wanted the British people out of the way.

If Dr North’s reading is correct, we need to look at the Second World War in a very different light.

To view the original article CLICK HERE
.

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” 
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

Regards,
Greg L-W.
for all my contact details & Blogs: CLICK HERE  

British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit of their own agenda and greed, have done more damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain into the thrall of foreign rule by the EU for their own personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain more than the armies of Hitler and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK


Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Adolf Hitler, Battle of Britain, Few the, German, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, The Few, The Many, Winston Churchill, World War II | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: