This should be interesting. I expect all those who say "oh no, Trump could never collude with Russia" to suddenly have a different view about Foot.

No. You're right. This story is definitely about Donald Trump and his supporters. Thanks to your cleverness we can see through the thinly disguised premise that it's about Michael Foot.

This is for you.

It won't be interesting at all. It'll just be the same old tit for tat mud sling fest. It seems to float your boat though so crack on. I'll skip to page 8 in 3 days time to see who's winning. Enjoy

The Sunday Times already made that claim, Michael Foot successfully sued them for libel.
It's absolute trash to make the claim again, knowing you can't libel a dead man.

What's with the blind faith with Britain's security/intelligence services anyway? This is illusion some people have that they are whiter than white, when the reality is they are probably darker than the KGB or the CIA. They were no better 25 years a go than they are today. It's time Mi5/Mi6 received proper scrutiny and ultimately replaced with a different and more accountable body.

Let's not forget Mi6 is the reason why Mothers lost their soldier son's and daughters lives in Iraq. They stood by their own bogus intelligence, yes Blair exaggerated their claims, but make no mistake Mi6 provided the evidence. The Chilcot report was damning of Mi6 stated the information they provided was flawed.

Is any wonder people stop and question when they are drip fed information about the skripal case, which is more dodgy than the dodgy dossier.

Find it very hard to believe that a man trusted to be a British assassin during WW2 would sell out his country, he was a left wing socialist not a communist. As far as I'm aware this is not yet America where they don't seem capable of seeing a difference.

Imploding Turtle wrote:This should be interesting. I expect all those who say "oh no, Trump could never collude with Russia" to suddenly have a different view about Foot.

Your Trump derangement syndrome is off the scale, seek professional help.

claretandy wrote:Your Trump derangement syndrome is off the scale, seek professional help.

That's not a thing mate.

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's not a thing mate.

It wasn't. Until you got it.

Michael Foot- superb orator his time.

thatdberight wrote:It wasn't. Until you got it.

Still not a thing.

Gillian Anderson is turning 50? No way!

And the donkey jacket that wasn't. It was actually a very expensive coat from Harrods.

duncandisorderly wrote:Gillian Anderson is turning 50? No way!

Well that's another fantasy mucked up!!!

Dark Cloud wrote:Well that's another fantasy mucked up!!!

Why?

Won't she be agile enough at 50?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Why?

Won't she be agile enough at 50?

It might be more awkward asking who her daddy is.

I knew Michael foot and Michael ball but I never got to meet Michael football.

I wonder if the Daily Mail will dig up the Lord Rothermere story and produce a scoop about him supporting the Blackshirts.

I think it's such old news and discredited at the time it's embarrassing to dig it up.
As an aside I wonder what Foot would think of Corbyn and visa versa.

PutTheWheelieBinsOut wrote:The Sunday Times already made that claim, Michael Foot successfully sued them for libel.
It's absolute trash to make the claim again, knowing you can't libel a dead man.

Headline in The Times today:

MI6 believed Michael Foot was a paid Soviet informant
Truth about former Labour leader emerges 23 years after he sued Sunday Times for libel

Ben Macintyre has published a new book on Oleg Gordievsky, senior KGB agent, head of London office, who was a double agent, working for British intelligence after becoming "disenchanted" with Soviet Union after invasion of Prague in 1968.

The book is being serialised in The Times/Sunday Times.

Politicians like him are sadly missed these days, off message, no image coaches, no body language advisers , principled and intelligent. If he was here today he would change his name to Michael 30cm by deed poll to appease the centre ground.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Still not a thing.

TDS - how many people need to recognise it before it becomes a thing?

He was a Plymouth fan if I remember correctly

If I remember correctly, he got hammered in the General Election, in which he was the Labour leader. Jeremy, Mark 1, though I do believe Jeremy has more chance of winning an election.

Why title this with a link to Trump?

Cloughy, look who posted it.

.

If it be your will wrote:Yes, the original version of this story was discussed in the Leveson enquiry https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hea ... row#s30874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Jay
There was a story some time ago now, obviously, in your paper in which it was said that Mr Michael Foot, who of course became the leader of the option but he wasn't at the time, was a KGB agent; is that correct?

Mr John Witherow
Yes.

Mr Jay
That story was incorrect, was it?

Mr John Witherow
Yes, it was -- thank you for reminding me. It was very early in my editorship and -- it was 1994, I think.

Lord Justice Leveson
It all comes out here, Mr Witherow.

Mr John Witherow
It came from a very senior KGB defector, Oleg Gordievsky, in a book, and I think it's fair to say I overcooked it and cocked it up.


And now, the very same editor is running the very same story. Do we all agree, then, that The Times just isn't worth reading? That if anyone quotes The Times we are allowed to say "HA Ha! You qouted The Times!! You might as well quote The Sunday Sport, mate..."?

I see all the Murdoch press the same way.

Vino blanco wrote:If I remember correctly, he got hammered in the General Election, in which he was the Labour leader. Jeremy, Mark 1, though I do believe Jeremy has more chance of winning an election.

Ah but, the timing for him was awful.
He'd Shirley Williams et al buggering off and forming her new party, a fall out with Benn over the deputy leadership and Tatcher had the Falklands war.


He or anybody else had no chance in that election.

If it be your will wrote:Yes, the original version of this story was discussed in the Leveson enquiry https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hea ... row#s30874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Jay
There was a story some time ago now, obviously, in your paper in which it was said that Mr Michael Foot, who of course became the leader of the option but he wasn't at the time, was a KGB agent; is that correct?

Mr John Witherow
Yes.

Mr Jay
That story was incorrect, was it?

Mr John Witherow
Yes, it was -- thank you for reminding me. It was very early in my editorship and -- it was 1994, I think.

Lord Justice Leveson
It all comes out here, Mr Witherow.

Mr John Witherow
It came from a very senior KGB defector, Oleg Gordievsky, in a book, and I think it's fair to say I overcooked it and cocked it up.


And now, the very same editor is running the very same story. Do we all agree, then, that The Times just isn't worth reading? That if anyone quotes The Times we are allowed to say "HA Ha! You qouted The Times!! You might as well quote The Sunday Sport, mate..."?

Hi iibyw,

Worth reading the extracts from the book - which The Times/S.Times is serialising. Yes, The Times "overcooked" the claim that Micheal Foot/Agent Boot was a "spy." It appears he was just someone who was happy to speak with representatives of the Soviet Union and accept money from them - that probably went to fund The Tribune. But, "Agent Boot" was downgraded by KGB when Micheal Foot criticised the Soviet invasion of Prague in August 1968. We can probably say that the KGB was "grooming" Agent Boot, but discontinued when they knew they wouldn't be successful.

I guess the Daily Mail article is what the media knows as a "spoiler" - i.e trying to grab some of the readership of The Times.

Of course, you can say whatever you like about anyone that quotes The Times - or any other media. Generally, I believe those sorts of comments reflect the character of the person making the "ha! ha! statement - and nothing else.

.

bfcjg wrote:Politicians like him are sadly missed these days, off message, no image coaches, no body language advisers , principled and intelligent. If he was here today he would change his name to Michael 30cm by deed poll to appease the centre ground.

Sounds a lot like Corbyn to me.

If it be your will wrote:No, it's not worth reading extracts from the book. It really isn't.

It was shown years ago that the book is a work of complete fabrication. The Times ran the story based on it and got sued. The editor admitted at the Leveson enquiry that it was a load of rubbish, and now the same editor of the same paper is running the story again. It's not entirely clear why they've taken leave of their senses this way. even Andrew Neal, another former editor of the Sunday Times has basically said it's rubbish.

But by all means you read it, if you want to.

How did your visit to Salisbury go, iibyw?

Paul Waine wrote:Hi iibyw,

Worth reading the extracts from the book - which The Times/S.Times is serialising. Yes, The Times "overcooked" the claim that Micheal Foot/Agent Boot was a "spy." It appears he was just someone who was happy to speak with representatives of the Soviet Union and accept money from them - that probably went to fund The Tribune. But, "Agent Boot" was downgraded by KGB when Micheal Foot criticised the Soviet invasion of Prague in August 1968. We can probably say that the KGB was "grooming" Agent Boot, but discontinued when they knew they wouldn't be successful.

I guess the Daily Mail article is what the media knows as a "spoiler" - i.e trying to grab some of the readership of The Times.

Of course, you can say whatever you like about anyone that quotes The Times - or any other media. Generally, I believe those sorts of comments reflect the character of the person making the "ha! ha! statement - and nothing else.

The Tory Party has received a lot of money in donations from rich Russians (some of whom have close ties to Putin) over the last decade, some of which has purchased ‘personal time’ with senior party figures and ministers. Perhaps by serialising this story the Times are actually trying to draw our attention to this?

.

If it be your will wrote:I must admit, even I'm a little intrigued by this front page splash. I've been looking around and major figures in politics and journalism right across the political spectrum are looking quizzically at each other: "Why on earth is The Times re-running an old story that has already been proven to be made up? There must be a twist coming or something."

Nobody is quite ready to assume, or believe, The Times have fallen in stature to this extent. So everyone's asking: What's their game? What is still to come, here? Okay, some are willing to take it seriously as it stands(!), but they are few in number, and none from the established commentariat.

Okay The Times, you have our attention, we're strapped in, let's see what you've got.

Hi iibyw, is that Momentum's line, suggesting it's The Times that is reporting the publication of a book? Have you rec'd a briefing sheet on the position to take?

My reading is that The Times are just saying "told you so" - with the added motivation that they were sued and lost. They also mention a few other occasions when they were sued and lost - but later they were proved to have been right all along.

And, perhaps the reason for Momentum's line is that The Times is also reporting that McDonnell is now thinking Corbyn is not the "great bearded hope" he was once perceived to be - and maybe JC should be replaced as leader....

On the other hand, maybe The Times is making all that up..... What do you think?

They're serialising a book. Common tabloid practice, to drum up attention.

Michael Foot was a very principled man - I don't agree with much of what he stood for, and neither did most of the electorate, but I'm sure he stood up for what he believed in. I could believe that he might (I only say might) give secrets to the USSR if he thought that was best for Britain and the world. I do not believe he would sell secrets, because he wouldn't be in it for the money.

As for turtle linking Michael Foot's name with Donald Trump, it seems to be a bit pointless and very much unfair on Foot. Mud sticks.

.

Unless they have new information (which they don't appear to have) they are effectively slandering a dead man, knowing full well he can't sue.

Thats terrible, whatever your political affiliation.

Michael Foot was once asked to be Chairman of the Nuclear Disarmament Committee. The headline next day?

'Foot Heads Arms Body'.

dsr wrote:They're serialising a book. Common tabloid practice, to drum up attention.

Michael Foot was a very principled man - I don't agree with much of what he stood for, and neither did most of the electorate, but I'm sure he stood up for what he believed in. I could believe that he might (I only say might) give secrets to the USSR if he thought that was best for Britain and the world. I do not believe he would sell secrets, because he wouldn't be in it for the money.

As for turtle linking Michael Foot's name with Donald Trump, it seems to be a bit pointless and very much unfair on Foot. Mud sticks.

Hi dsr, what I've read is that Michael Foot didn't provide the Soviets with any secrets. They met with him for lunch on a number of occasions, often in the Gay Husar (restaurant near Westminster, I understand). They gave him money - which it is possible Foot put into the Tribune's funds. Then Foot went cool on Soviets after they invaded Czechoslovakia (spelling? - easier to spell Prague). And, the Soviets cooled on him - downgrading his status for "agent" to, well, whatever....

I'm not sure what people are getting excited about. It's all very Michael Foot. No surprises.

And, The Times is not repeating what they were sued for - when they most likely "over cooked" the story.
\

Wonder who the next dead person to be picked on... Brucey perhaps?