It's fair to say I am no stranger to controversy or personal attacks, but even I was quite surprised at the - shall we say - "strength of feeling" that erupted as a result of my last article, exploring the military-intelligence tactics that are used to manipulate us online, with particular reference to Lucy Connolly.
I used to not understand journalism. I knew my mother thought it was a great career and both my siblings have written for broadsheets, but I just didn't get it. I think my brother was drawn to it because he loved writing and my mum was saying "this is an awesome job", but despite being a music journalist for years, I think he'd have rather been writing fiction (not a job, something you have to put years of unrewarded effort into before you can even hope to get a small return).
As I saw it, journalists seemed to just like seeing their opinions in print and rarely offered anything approaching a fresh or personally or socially transformative perspective. (The film "Broadcast News" is, I think a wonderful depiction of how newscasters became shallower and a perfect AI precursor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_News_(film))
Just to give a tiny bit of background about me, I have spent about 25 years as a business analyst. That means I go into organisations and try and understand, in explicit terms, what they want to achieve to support IT system roll-out. This often involves understanding the values of the employees/organisation. There are many areas where this is very simple (banks, Enron), but repulsive. And other areas (like "health") where it's straightforwardly disturbing (someone might have said to me in a meeting once "we are definitely killing people by not sharing data" - nice).
However, publishing seemed to be just a hop skip and a jump from the whimsical world of fashion (another area I only understand because my daughter keeps explaining it to me, apparently there's a zeitgeist some people can tune into and she's one of them). By that I meant, I didn't understand why certain things were being published and others weren't.
From 2016 - 2017 I worked for The Financial Times (though in their DevOps function - that is the techies of techies IT function) and I met some people who really valued it. I started to have an inkling of what it might be about. One young woman explained to me some journalistic principles, which, while extremely easy to understand and obvious in how they'd manifest in operational outcomes, I had never heard anyone say with any integrity before. That said, the Financial Times is such a soulless and bleak read with a depressing feel and, IMO, not addressing anything of any real consequence (unless you count money, which I can do for about 20 minutes and then I get bored).
However, YOU, my dear Miri, YOU are someone whom I believe to embodies what journalism is supposed to be about; original take, tenacity, concern with the truth, desire to communicate with an audience, understanding why things need to be revealed, holding people to account.
I really hope the virtual slings and arrows being directed at you do you no harm. I know that, at work, when people are rude to me, I honestly do NOT care; for me to maintain my integrity, I need to stick to the agreed contract I have in place with my employer. If I am happy with what I have explicitly agreed to do (which I always am because otherwise I wouldn't take the contract) no problem. If people try to obstruct what I am doing, I have no issue confronting them. As the head of IT told me a board member I had never met said of me at my last place of work "she seems to be annoying a lot of people, but she also seems to be getting stuff done". When he relayed it to me he added "you are only annoying people because you are exposing their inadequacies".
Well, Miri, I want you to know that I think the same applies to do (you are only annoying people because you are exposing their inadequacies) and I hope that, like me, it doesn't hurt you. I hope that for two reasons; firstly as they say in NZ, I think you are a stand-up person - a good person and I don't want harm to come to you; secondly, because I really want you to keep going because I am finding this SO much fun to read!
Thanks very much, Rosie, much appreciated! And yes, I am certainly aware of what inadequacies have been revealed in others when they resort to simply insulting me (especially when the insults are as base and unoriginal as Pearson's....).
Thanks for your other interesting comments, all most intriguing, and yes, I have seen Broadcast News!
You are, perhaps, a bit like my son who, when he heard his dad had been called "FA Cup" at school because of his ears thought it was funny, until I explained it was a common insult when we were kids and then he didn't think it was funny at all! I think calling someone a "Mad Cow" is similarly less original, but isn't even funny. And even using mad as an insult annoys me SO much - it's such a lazy ad hominem.
I wonder if she's finding you so annoying because it exposes how she's a bit boring/derivative and decreasingly relevant? I know people aren't watching the BBC anything like the amount they used to, and I assume a similar thing is happening with the former broadsheets. Whereas you have people who will pay JUST to support you in writing your articles; I can't imagine many (any?) people would do that for her.
I suspect she sold out and became boring. Perhaps she was once a principled and idealistic person like you and, similarly to Dorian Gray, can't stand the reminder of what she's become so wants to destroy it?
Whatever it is, I just hope her vicious infantile behaviour doesn't harm or deter you. xox
Thank you, Rosie, and I think that's a very perceptive comment, which has accurately summed Pearson and her motivations up. She and her ilk know they are increasingly irrelevant, so are thrashing around desperately trying to maintain their clout and power, and sadly, failing miserably.
It is of note that, in 2015, Allison Pearson was declared bankrupt. It would be interesting to know if the tone of her journalistic endeavours "inexplicably" altered subsequently to this...
Gosh that is so sad. I almost feel like crying for her. You really reap what you sow, aye? Vanity can really make people come unstuck because it inhibits one's ability to admit you are wrong, and therefore change. Oh poor woman.
This exchange is reminding me of one I had years ago with a woman on the train.
I was taking a commuter train from London to Cobham and was sat next to a very beautiful young woman who had curlers in and clearly wanted me to talk to her. I had been at work all day and I just could not be ARSED to talk to anyone, so I didn't (my kids were pre-teen and, while not hard work, still a lot after a day at work). She eventually asked me whether the train was going to continue to be so busy and I did not ignore her (because I wasn't *that* emotionally depleted) and started chatting to her. It turned out she was getting out at the same stop as me and I asked her why she was going there and she said "to see a friend". She had a Liverpudlian accent and there was NO WAY she had a "friend" in Cobham. I knew why she was going there - she was going there to hook-up with a footballer. I said something like "so, I presume you are going to see a footballer" at which point she looked shocked as though I was clairvoyant, but honestly, if you knew Cobham, this was no genius on my part. Virtually no one has friends, just people they pose next to in photographs/drink with to feel like they are not an alcoholic. At this point I became quite concerned about her welfare so started asking a lot of questions about him, her, their relationship, her family, his family etc. And then, part way through, I completely lost concern for her and was concerned about him and his welfare. She seemed a bit put-out and said something like "why are you more concerned about him? Because I am a strong independent woman?" (I think she'd been a bit programmed there!) and I said something like "No, because you clearly have a huge amount of support and a lot of people who love you and he doesn't." which she accepted. And then when we got out of the train and he was standing waiting for her (not sat in a car expecting him to come to her), well, my goodness, I was WAY more concerned for him - he looked like the Milky Bar kid (albeit a bit older and obviously very athletic) who couldn't believe that being good at football and earning a lot of money meant this rather beautiful woman not only spoke to him but had just taken a train from Liverpool to see him.
Similarly, I am now imagining Alison P taking her medication at night to try and sleep while her integrity and material life crumble around her. Poor cow. Personally, I'd rather be a mad cow.
Worth checking what happened on said cruise. Like many things now I cannot always remember sources, but I was surprised to see Mark Steyn in such company.
Very good letter Miri. I’m so glad I don’t do any social media. I just stepped away from being a moderator on, of all things, a Mensa forum after becoming horrified by the uncivil behaviour and bullying towards me from other moderators as well as members. I shall not renew my membership and I dan tell you that even so called intelligent people can be partisan and intolerant of diverse opinions.I shake my head and wonder what on earth is going on. Would people brawl like this if they were face to face? One would have thought that Pearson would have learnt her lesson after her recent brush with the Police over another Tweet or is she simply trying to incite the police to come knocking on her door again so she can write about it in her book? If she really thinks you are a nutty conspiracy theorist why would she bring you to the attention of her followers? Don’t they say all publicity is good publicity?
Agreed on all counts, and yes, her behaviour is absolutely idiotic. It would never pass muster with an editor, but when these dim-witted journos are left to their own devices on social media, they have a tendency to do immensely stupid things, as per the other Tweet you mentioned, where she confused a Pakistani flag with that of Hamas...
Love it, Miri! Brilliant! So very interesting to see what response you'll get ... or I wonder if they simply won't respond. Could they just not respond I wonder.
"You must think everyone must be gullible to believe your bullshit.
It’s not a batshit conspiracy to know that this isn’t how a genuine husband would react.
Awful acting and none of the story adds up."
Response by Alison (a different one) to Andy's comment.
"I didn't see this reported on the TV at the time but it's certainly an astonishing interview! It sounds like he doesn't know the person he's talking about. I'm also surprised that a trained journalist can't tolerate an attempt to logically put forward an alternative hypothesis..."
Thanks Petra, and yes indeed - excruciating is the word. As Andy says, that is simply not how a genuine husband - or even a genuine friend - would react. Alison (other one!) is also right, he sounds like he's talking about someone he barely knows, not someone he's lived with for twenty years and had children with.
It's also very odd we've heard nothing directly from Lucy herself in all this time. She is allowed to make phone calls. Yet no recorded voice message of thanks for her followers, not even after they raised over £150k for her?
Also, why haven't all these journalists, including Ms. Pearson, been to visit her? Why has Ms. Pearson taken the time to visit "her kitchen table" yet not the woman herself?
And why didn't she appear in person at her trial?
Every time I look at this shoddy state psyop, more and more holes appear...
"Every time I look at this shoddy state psyop, more and more holes appear..."
Yes, that's the way it usually is with psyops ... the more you look, the more nonsensical. If you get a response on this I shall be most surprised. They simply have no leg to stand on. But I really hope you do!
Maybe, however, I tend to find when people don't have a response that THEY at least feel is a good one from their point of view they simply don't respond - that's the best way to get around the problem, no? And I don't see how they can come up with a response that is a good one from their point of view. But we shall see. Good luck is all I can say and I really hope they do respond because I am most curious to see what they come up with.
I would like and share but I can't be trusted on twitter so it's not on my phone. This publicity is great for you Miri, I'm just worried you'll attract the attention of TPTB and then get taken out, how would I keep ahead of the curve then?
Thanks Mary, if they're remotely intelligent, they will not risk bringing even more attention to me by going after me, but then as we see with Pearson, a lot of them do seem to have deficits in that department.
Anyway, for the record, I have no current health problems, do not take any medications or illegal substances, and am not suicidal. So you know what to think if anything "happens" to me. Which, let me reiterate, I think is very, very unlikely!
CONGRATULATIONS Miri, James Delingpole and yourself seem to have landed a resounding right hook on the establishment. Oh! this is glorious and so good you bring Bob Moran into the discussion, a brave warrior.
Now you certainly have the reach that is denied by Substack. If this lady has 220,000 follows I think it might be said you have hit the mainstream, no publicity is bad publicity. It’s as though you put a message out to the universe and it said “Ok, Miri, here you go”
If I had £1m I would donate to a law suit just to get the subject into the real world but your Connolly piece seems to suggest a court room is not the real world.
As you say, one has to marvel at the human condition and its inherent ability to put a big fat human foot in it. Great letter BTW, no emotion. Maybe you’ll get the hit piece you were seeking.
Thank you, Egg Rolls! I really think you're onto something. If you genuinely ask the universe for something, and really mean it, you tend to get it. I asked for some publicity in the form of an attack from the mainstream, and voila...
I shouldn't have thought they'll be stupid enough to follow it up with any official "hit piece", but at this point, nothing would surprise me!
Miri! You've been doing "magic" and it's worked. I'm delighted for you. I too have been practising asking the universe for things and it's quite the wonderful experiment.
There is no such thing a bad publicity and my goodness, you make such a good case so eloquently. I trust James will also share *this* article on his Twatter account. 🤞
Miri's previous post about Substack was excellent and, to me, is relevant to the issue covered in this one.
Allison Pearson, who in my opinion, is one of the nastiest pieces of work in British journalism (no easy feat), seems to make her no doubt substantial living as a 'controversialist'. She is a leading light of uber-Zionist 'British Friends of Israel', and regularly posts in favour of the Zionist entity, and its genocide of Palestinians. She was sort-of (not really) against the scamdemic measures and possibly thereby fooled some about her true nature. No doubt one of her latest stunts is bravely speaking up on behalf of "Lucy Connolly".
Meanwhile, the famous and kindly philanthropist, humanitarian and libertarian, Elon Musk, acquired Twitter and re-named it X (no messages there eh?*) Can anyone seriously doubt that this was all for altruistic reasons? Surely it could not have been anything connected with his interest in AI, could it? I mean, Twitter/X doesn't hoover up data and personal information like there's no tomorrow let alone waste everyone's time who engages with its glorified school playground for the "commentariat". No doubt if you're trying to be make a living as an alternative journalist, it is useful to enhance your 'reach' but at what cost?
I have no doubt that Miri is right about "Lucy Connolly" and this may well be why the ghastly piranha, Pearson, is calling her names on the platform.
It's not my fight but if I was Miri, I'd regard it as vindication for her theory and let it go at that.
Yes, we Miris should stick together! Thanks for this information which is somehow not surprising. The Pearson tweet story smells of more psyop to me and an intervention by Musk seems to confirm that. Anyway, glad to hear that the unwelcome attention from La Pearson has brought you more traffic (even if by a roundabout route). You deserve it - we do our best by sending people links to your output.
I certainly have! I think that was more from James Delingpole's share than Pearson's remarks, but nevertheless, the controversy has done nothing but bump up my numbers, as that is what controversy does! One day my haters might realise this, but it doesn't look like that day is coming soon....
You are doing great work shining a light on this op Miri. Have you ever opined on the Alex Belendfield op? I note he is now out from his self confessed holiday camp sentence which was 33 months natch!
Miri, when there's a psychological war going on, it's probably about how high you lift your head above the pushed-narrative parapet: just peak above it and the corporate media mafia won't bother too much about you. But you go head and shoulders above it, as They think you did with the Lucy piece, and They will train their guns on you.
Pearson, may be a 'star' journalist in her upmarket rag, but she is probably just an establishment asset - paid to push certain narratives and offer a few limited hang-outs to fish-in the undecideds ('I'm one of you guys - read some of my pieces' ). Bob Moran was of the very few braves that has any integrity in the seedy world of fish and chips wrappers.
What WAS interesting though was, the way your 'friend' Delingpole dropped you like hot potato when, after initially praising your 'Lucy' article, his old colleague (Pearson) turned her subdued wrath on him (Delingpole: "I'd take it up with @mattersinformed, Allison..." ) - You coward Delingpole. Needless to say that although I read some of his well-written 'conspiracy' pieces - I don't particularly like him.
I know a couple of people have been critical of James' response to Allison, but I read it differently: I don't think he was distancing himself from me, but rather, encouraging her to engage with me directly, which in turn would quickly have exposed the many holes in her argument (she's writing a book about a living person she's never met? Why hasn't she been to visit Lucy in prison? And many other such anomalies). As you can see, she wholly rejected James' invitation to speak to me directly, and instead just attacked and threatened me. So it revealed her.
James has since stood by his remarks and has not removed his Tweet endorsing my article, despite clearly being put under some considerable pressure to do so, so I think he has his integrity intact!
Whether the MSM would do an actual official hit piece on me is an interesting point, and I maintain that they wouldn't, simply because it could only have the effect of amplifying my voice, rather than diminishing it.
It's different if a person speaking out has an establishment employer. For instance, the MSM doing a hit piece on an NHS doctor or university academic makes sense, because that kind of "bad press" could result in the person getting fired and thus has the effect of diminishing their voice by removing their platform and income.
They did this to my friend Chris Exley, who was employed by the University of Keele, where he conducted research that flagged up safety issues with vaccines.
So the MSM did a few hit pieces on him which ultimately resulted in him losing his job. But now that he is no longer employed by the establishment, they leave him alone, despite the fact he is as outspoken as ever on his Substack.
They would not go after him now, since now that he is an independent voice, such publicity would help, rather than harm, him. As a dissident, it's obviously a badge of honour to be smeared by the mainstream, so I don't think they'd bestow that upon him.
So that's why I think they wouldn't go after me, more than they have idiotically already done, since it would simply amplify my voice, make more people aware of my theories, and give me more credibility with my target audience as an "enemy to the state" etc.
I really can't believe they'd be stupid enough to do all that, but clearly many of them are quite stupid, so we will see!
These ‘journalists’ just can’t tolerate dissent from the state narrative/edicts and have become ridiculous and hysterical defenders of all things status quo. Great pushback letter Miri!
OMG, I am just loving this!
I used to not understand journalism. I knew my mother thought it was a great career and both my siblings have written for broadsheets, but I just didn't get it. I think my brother was drawn to it because he loved writing and my mum was saying "this is an awesome job", but despite being a music journalist for years, I think he'd have rather been writing fiction (not a job, something you have to put years of unrewarded effort into before you can even hope to get a small return).
As I saw it, journalists seemed to just like seeing their opinions in print and rarely offered anything approaching a fresh or personally or socially transformative perspective. (The film "Broadcast News" is, I think a wonderful depiction of how newscasters became shallower and a perfect AI precursor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_News_(film))
Just to give a tiny bit of background about me, I have spent about 25 years as a business analyst. That means I go into organisations and try and understand, in explicit terms, what they want to achieve to support IT system roll-out. This often involves understanding the values of the employees/organisation. There are many areas where this is very simple (banks, Enron), but repulsive. And other areas (like "health") where it's straightforwardly disturbing (someone might have said to me in a meeting once "we are definitely killing people by not sharing data" - nice).
However, publishing seemed to be just a hop skip and a jump from the whimsical world of fashion (another area I only understand because my daughter keeps explaining it to me, apparently there's a zeitgeist some people can tune into and she's one of them). By that I meant, I didn't understand why certain things were being published and others weren't.
From 2016 - 2017 I worked for The Financial Times (though in their DevOps function - that is the techies of techies IT function) and I met some people who really valued it. I started to have an inkling of what it might be about. One young woman explained to me some journalistic principles, which, while extremely easy to understand and obvious in how they'd manifest in operational outcomes, I had never heard anyone say with any integrity before. That said, the Financial Times is such a soulless and bleak read with a depressing feel and, IMO, not addressing anything of any real consequence (unless you count money, which I can do for about 20 minutes and then I get bored).
However, YOU, my dear Miri, YOU are someone whom I believe to embodies what journalism is supposed to be about; original take, tenacity, concern with the truth, desire to communicate with an audience, understanding why things need to be revealed, holding people to account.
I really hope the virtual slings and arrows being directed at you do you no harm. I know that, at work, when people are rude to me, I honestly do NOT care; for me to maintain my integrity, I need to stick to the agreed contract I have in place with my employer. If I am happy with what I have explicitly agreed to do (which I always am because otherwise I wouldn't take the contract) no problem. If people try to obstruct what I am doing, I have no issue confronting them. As the head of IT told me a board member I had never met said of me at my last place of work "she seems to be annoying a lot of people, but she also seems to be getting stuff done". When he relayed it to me he added "you are only annoying people because you are exposing their inadequacies".
Well, Miri, I want you to know that I think the same applies to do (you are only annoying people because you are exposing their inadequacies) and I hope that, like me, it doesn't hurt you. I hope that for two reasons; firstly as they say in NZ, I think you are a stand-up person - a good person and I don't want harm to come to you; secondly, because I really want you to keep going because I am finding this SO much fun to read!
Thanks very much, Rosie, much appreciated! And yes, I am certainly aware of what inadequacies have been revealed in others when they resort to simply insulting me (especially when the insults are as base and unoriginal as Pearson's....).
Thanks for your other interesting comments, all most intriguing, and yes, I have seen Broadcast News!
You are, perhaps, a bit like my son who, when he heard his dad had been called "FA Cup" at school because of his ears thought it was funny, until I explained it was a common insult when we were kids and then he didn't think it was funny at all! I think calling someone a "Mad Cow" is similarly less original, but isn't even funny. And even using mad as an insult annoys me SO much - it's such a lazy ad hominem.
I wonder if she's finding you so annoying because it exposes how she's a bit boring/derivative and decreasingly relevant? I know people aren't watching the BBC anything like the amount they used to, and I assume a similar thing is happening with the former broadsheets. Whereas you have people who will pay JUST to support you in writing your articles; I can't imagine many (any?) people would do that for her.
I suspect she sold out and became boring. Perhaps she was once a principled and idealistic person like you and, similarly to Dorian Gray, can't stand the reminder of what she's become so wants to destroy it?
Whatever it is, I just hope her vicious infantile behaviour doesn't harm or deter you. xox
Thank you, Rosie, and I think that's a very perceptive comment, which has accurately summed Pearson and her motivations up. She and her ilk know they are increasingly irrelevant, so are thrashing around desperately trying to maintain their clout and power, and sadly, failing miserably.
It is of note that, in 2015, Allison Pearson was declared bankrupt. It would be interesting to know if the tone of her journalistic endeavours "inexplicably" altered subsequently to this...
Thanks again for your support xx
Gosh that is so sad. I almost feel like crying for her. You really reap what you sow, aye? Vanity can really make people come unstuck because it inhibits one's ability to admit you are wrong, and therefore change. Oh poor woman.
This exchange is reminding me of one I had years ago with a woman on the train.
I was taking a commuter train from London to Cobham and was sat next to a very beautiful young woman who had curlers in and clearly wanted me to talk to her. I had been at work all day and I just could not be ARSED to talk to anyone, so I didn't (my kids were pre-teen and, while not hard work, still a lot after a day at work). She eventually asked me whether the train was going to continue to be so busy and I did not ignore her (because I wasn't *that* emotionally depleted) and started chatting to her. It turned out she was getting out at the same stop as me and I asked her why she was going there and she said "to see a friend". She had a Liverpudlian accent and there was NO WAY she had a "friend" in Cobham. I knew why she was going there - she was going there to hook-up with a footballer. I said something like "so, I presume you are going to see a footballer" at which point she looked shocked as though I was clairvoyant, but honestly, if you knew Cobham, this was no genius on my part. Virtually no one has friends, just people they pose next to in photographs/drink with to feel like they are not an alcoholic. At this point I became quite concerned about her welfare so started asking a lot of questions about him, her, their relationship, her family, his family etc. And then, part way through, I completely lost concern for her and was concerned about him and his welfare. She seemed a bit put-out and said something like "why are you more concerned about him? Because I am a strong independent woman?" (I think she'd been a bit programmed there!) and I said something like "No, because you clearly have a huge amount of support and a lot of people who love you and he doesn't." which she accepted. And then when we got out of the train and he was standing waiting for her (not sat in a car expecting him to come to her), well, my goodness, I was WAY more concerned for him - he looked like the Milky Bar kid (albeit a bit older and obviously very athletic) who couldn't believe that being good at football and earning a lot of money meant this rather beautiful woman not only spoke to him but had just taken a train from Liverpool to see him.
Similarly, I am now imagining Alison P taking her medication at night to try and sleep while her integrity and material life crumble around her. Poor cow. Personally, I'd rather be a mad cow.
If Alison Pearson is attacking you then it means you’re over the target. Keep going! 🫡
Miri, I think you will know that Ms Pearson was on the cruise (Arranged by Mark Steyn?) along with Messrs Fox and Bridgen I believe.
No I didn't, thanks for sharing - very indicting!
Worth checking what happened on said cruise. Like many things now I cannot always remember sources, but I was surprised to see Mark Steyn in such company.
Very good letter Miri. I’m so glad I don’t do any social media. I just stepped away from being a moderator on, of all things, a Mensa forum after becoming horrified by the uncivil behaviour and bullying towards me from other moderators as well as members. I shall not renew my membership and I dan tell you that even so called intelligent people can be partisan and intolerant of diverse opinions.I shake my head and wonder what on earth is going on. Would people brawl like this if they were face to face? One would have thought that Pearson would have learnt her lesson after her recent brush with the Police over another Tweet or is she simply trying to incite the police to come knocking on her door again so she can write about it in her book? If she really thinks you are a nutty conspiracy theorist why would she bring you to the attention of her followers? Don’t they say all publicity is good publicity?
Agreed on all counts, and yes, her behaviour is absolutely idiotic. It would never pass muster with an editor, but when these dim-witted journos are left to their own devices on social media, they have a tendency to do immensely stupid things, as per the other Tweet you mentioned, where she confused a Pakistani flag with that of Hamas...
This shows that you are right over the target. Keep up the good work.
Love it, Miri! Brilliant! So very interesting to see what response you'll get ... or I wonder if they simply won't respond. Could they just not respond I wonder.
Thank you! I think whether they respond depends on how much pressure they feel to do so, so the more likes and shares of this article, the better :)
Actually, didn't think to look at the actual X post. Good to see your argument gets quite a lot of support in the comments.
https://x.com/AllisonPearson/status/1933202972382576956
Andy Uccello puts a link to an interview with the husband - totally excruciating and couldn't listen all the way through - with the following comment.
https://x.com/AndyUccello/status/1933635322748809384
"You must think everyone must be gullible to believe your bullshit.
It’s not a batshit conspiracy to know that this isn’t how a genuine husband would react.
Awful acting and none of the story adds up."
Response by Alison (a different one) to Andy's comment.
"I didn't see this reported on the TV at the time but it's certainly an astonishing interview! It sounds like he doesn't know the person he's talking about. I'm also surprised that a trained journalist can't tolerate an attempt to logically put forward an alternative hypothesis..."
Thanks Petra, and yes indeed - excruciating is the word. As Andy says, that is simply not how a genuine husband - or even a genuine friend - would react. Alison (other one!) is also right, he sounds like he's talking about someone he barely knows, not someone he's lived with for twenty years and had children with.
It's also very odd we've heard nothing directly from Lucy herself in all this time. She is allowed to make phone calls. Yet no recorded voice message of thanks for her followers, not even after they raised over £150k for her?
Also, why haven't all these journalists, including Ms. Pearson, been to visit her? Why has Ms. Pearson taken the time to visit "her kitchen table" yet not the woman herself?
And why didn't she appear in person at her trial?
Every time I look at this shoddy state psyop, more and more holes appear...
"Every time I look at this shoddy state psyop, more and more holes appear..."
Yes, that's the way it usually is with psyops ... the more you look, the more nonsensical. If you get a response on this I shall be most surprised. They simply have no leg to stand on. But I really hope you do!
Maybe, however, I tend to find when people don't have a response that THEY at least feel is a good one from their point of view they simply don't respond - that's the best way to get around the problem, no? And I don't see how they can come up with a response that is a good one from their point of view. But we shall see. Good luck is all I can say and I really hope they do respond because I am most curious to see what they come up with.
I would like and share but I can't be trusted on twitter so it's not on my phone. This publicity is great for you Miri, I'm just worried you'll attract the attention of TPTB and then get taken out, how would I keep ahead of the curve then?
Thanks Mary, if they're remotely intelligent, they will not risk bringing even more attention to me by going after me, but then as we see with Pearson, a lot of them do seem to have deficits in that department.
Anyway, for the record, I have no current health problems, do not take any medications or illegal substances, and am not suicidal. So you know what to think if anything "happens" to me. Which, let me reiterate, I think is very, very unlikely!
CONGRATULATIONS Miri, James Delingpole and yourself seem to have landed a resounding right hook on the establishment. Oh! this is glorious and so good you bring Bob Moran into the discussion, a brave warrior.
Now you certainly have the reach that is denied by Substack. If this lady has 220,000 follows I think it might be said you have hit the mainstream, no publicity is bad publicity. It’s as though you put a message out to the universe and it said “Ok, Miri, here you go”
If I had £1m I would donate to a law suit just to get the subject into the real world but your Connolly piece seems to suggest a court room is not the real world.
As you say, one has to marvel at the human condition and its inherent ability to put a big fat human foot in it. Great letter BTW, no emotion. Maybe you’ll get the hit piece you were seeking.
Thank you, Egg Rolls! I really think you're onto something. If you genuinely ask the universe for something, and really mean it, you tend to get it. I asked for some publicity in the form of an attack from the mainstream, and voila...
I shouldn't have thought they'll be stupid enough to follow it up with any official "hit piece", but at this point, nothing would surprise me!
Miri! You've been doing "magic" and it's worked. I'm delighted for you. I too have been practising asking the universe for things and it's quite the wonderful experiment.
There is no such thing a bad publicity and my goodness, you make such a good case so eloquently. I trust James will also share *this* article on his Twatter account. 🤞
Thank you, Johan, and I would certainly be very pleased if he did!
Ms Pearson has been championed by my, dare I say ordinary family circle for some time, I look forward to developments........
Thanks Robert, I'll keep you posted!
Miri's previous post about Substack was excellent and, to me, is relevant to the issue covered in this one.
Allison Pearson, who in my opinion, is one of the nastiest pieces of work in British journalism (no easy feat), seems to make her no doubt substantial living as a 'controversialist'. She is a leading light of uber-Zionist 'British Friends of Israel', and regularly posts in favour of the Zionist entity, and its genocide of Palestinians. She was sort-of (not really) against the scamdemic measures and possibly thereby fooled some about her true nature. No doubt one of her latest stunts is bravely speaking up on behalf of "Lucy Connolly".
Meanwhile, the famous and kindly philanthropist, humanitarian and libertarian, Elon Musk, acquired Twitter and re-named it X (no messages there eh?*) Can anyone seriously doubt that this was all for altruistic reasons? Surely it could not have been anything connected with his interest in AI, could it? I mean, Twitter/X doesn't hoover up data and personal information like there's no tomorrow let alone waste everyone's time who engages with its glorified school playground for the "commentariat". No doubt if you're trying to be make a living as an alternative journalist, it is useful to enhance your 'reach' but at what cost?
I have no doubt that Miri is right about "Lucy Connolly" and this may well be why the ghastly piranha, Pearson, is calling her names on the platform.
It's not my fight but if I was Miri, I'd regard it as vindication for her theory and let it go at that.
*https://www.britannica.com/topic/X-Club
Thank you, Miriam (good name), great points - and it may interest you to know that the aforementioned Elon Musk publicly came to Pearson's defence when she was supposedly visited by the police for a Tweet.... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/13/elon-musk-journalists-non-crimes-stop-allison-pearson/
Yes, we Miris should stick together! Thanks for this information which is somehow not surprising. The Pearson tweet story smells of more psyop to me and an intervention by Musk seems to confirm that. Anyway, glad to hear that the unwelcome attention from La Pearson has brought you more traffic (even if by a roundabout route). You deserve it - we do our best by sending people links to your output.
Thank you, much appreciated!
Have you noticed any uptick in traffic to your substack? I hope so.
I certainly have! I think that was more from James Delingpole's share than Pearson's remarks, but nevertheless, the controversy has done nothing but bump up my numbers, as that is what controversy does! One day my haters might realise this, but it doesn't look like that day is coming soon....
It is interesting that for as long as I can remember the Telegraph has been known as a spook owned newspaper
You are doing great work shining a light on this op Miri. Have you ever opined on the Alex Belendfield op? I note he is now out from his self confessed holiday camp sentence which was 33 months natch!
Moral outrage by proxy.
How very modern.
Pretending to be thin skinned is not good optics for an alleged journalist.
Great article! Silly Allison. I love Bob, I just wish he hadn't made the number 33 front and centre in his signature. Food for thought.
Miri, when there's a psychological war going on, it's probably about how high you lift your head above the pushed-narrative parapet: just peak above it and the corporate media mafia won't bother too much about you. But you go head and shoulders above it, as They think you did with the Lucy piece, and They will train their guns on you.
Pearson, may be a 'star' journalist in her upmarket rag, but she is probably just an establishment asset - paid to push certain narratives and offer a few limited hang-outs to fish-in the undecideds ('I'm one of you guys - read some of my pieces' ). Bob Moran was of the very few braves that has any integrity in the seedy world of fish and chips wrappers.
What WAS interesting though was, the way your 'friend' Delingpole dropped you like hot potato when, after initially praising your 'Lucy' article, his old colleague (Pearson) turned her subdued wrath on him (Delingpole: "I'd take it up with @mattersinformed, Allison..." ) - You coward Delingpole. Needless to say that although I read some of his well-written 'conspiracy' pieces - I don't particularly like him.
Thanks Miker, I appreciate the support.
I know a couple of people have been critical of James' response to Allison, but I read it differently: I don't think he was distancing himself from me, but rather, encouraging her to engage with me directly, which in turn would quickly have exposed the many holes in her argument (she's writing a book about a living person she's never met? Why hasn't she been to visit Lucy in prison? And many other such anomalies). As you can see, she wholly rejected James' invitation to speak to me directly, and instead just attacked and threatened me. So it revealed her.
James has since stood by his remarks and has not removed his Tweet endorsing my article, despite clearly being put under some considerable pressure to do so, so I think he has his integrity intact!
Whether the MSM would do an actual official hit piece on me is an interesting point, and I maintain that they wouldn't, simply because it could only have the effect of amplifying my voice, rather than diminishing it.
It's different if a person speaking out has an establishment employer. For instance, the MSM doing a hit piece on an NHS doctor or university academic makes sense, because that kind of "bad press" could result in the person getting fired and thus has the effect of diminishing their voice by removing their platform and income.
They did this to my friend Chris Exley, who was employed by the University of Keele, where he conducted research that flagged up safety issues with vaccines.
So the MSM did a few hit pieces on him which ultimately resulted in him losing his job. But now that he is no longer employed by the establishment, they leave him alone, despite the fact he is as outspoken as ever on his Substack.
They would not go after him now, since now that he is an independent voice, such publicity would help, rather than harm, him. As a dissident, it's obviously a badge of honour to be smeared by the mainstream, so I don't think they'd bestow that upon him.
So that's why I think they wouldn't go after me, more than they have idiotically already done, since it would simply amplify my voice, make more people aware of my theories, and give me more credibility with my target audience as an "enemy to the state" etc.
I really can't believe they'd be stupid enough to do all that, but clearly many of them are quite stupid, so we will see!
These ‘journalists’ just can’t tolerate dissent from the state narrative/edicts and have become ridiculous and hysterical defenders of all things status quo. Great pushback letter Miri!