Monckton's PCC complaint rejected

The PCC adjudication is quite long winded. Looks like Monckton managed to waste quite a lot of their time. Oh well, I'm glad they take press complaints seriously I guess.

On a slightly different note, has anyone got any info on Monckton's 'cures'? I don't frequent medical blogs the same way I do climate science blogs, so I don't know if anyone has adequately smacked down his grandiose claims.

I don't think it was a waste of time at all - it's tested some of his contentions, such as whether he is in the House of Lords or not (although doubtless he won't drop that). Sometimes you have to let the other side make the move; a more extreme example is David Irving's failed libel against Deborah Lipstadt, which turned out to be a milestone in confronting holocaust denial.

As for his miracle cures, these will undoubtedly be confined to the quack science dustbin, along with a million other miracle cures, perpetual motion devices and 200mpg fuel additives. They'll never breach mainstream science (the inventor's excuse will be that they don't want their ideas stolen) and if anyone asks, the development is 'nearly there' and just requires some 'investors with vision'.

The Guardian accepted that the complainant had not made himself a gold pin (it had been made for, and presented to, him by a third party)

Well that's that settled. Chris, I hope it was worth it.

A point about one of the claims: Lord Munchkin might well have spotted an error in one of the AR4 tables, hence his claim to sharing the IPCC's Nobel Peace Prize, but it had already been spotted by someone else, and probably others too. I suppose, though, that the issue was simply about who made the pin.

>The complainant said that the piece listed a number of claims that he had made and wrongly cast doubt on their validity.

Wrongly casting doubt on the validity of something eh? The discount viscount would know all about that. Such mischievous behaviour!

I'm shocked that Dave Andrews hasn't showed up to discussing anything irrelevant yet. Maybe he's on vacation?

Err, "showed"->"shown" and "discussing"->"discuss". Me speak English goodly.

*In addition, the piece referred to the complainant as a âswivel-eyed maniac', which he said was a discriminatory reference to a physical disability (proptosis) he suffered as the result of having had Graves' disease.*

For someone who calls Jews "Hitler Youth" on video and refuses to apologize about it, the Discount has very thin skin when someone replies in kind.

What a pussy.

*I'm shocked that Dave Andrews hasn't showed up to discussing anything irrelevant yet. Maybe he's on vacation?*

Don't you know? He's beating his wife.

I am amazed that Lord M has not filed a complaint about our blog reporting on him:

http://friendsofginandtonic.org/

I would say we severely pulled his leg several times very recently.

#8 I thought he'd stopped beating her?

Well, that was simple enough.

On the other hand, George deserves it, and more. Pity the Discount Mountebank didn't FOI George for every conversation he's had in the last 30 years with anyone, and the contents of all his journalistic files and tapes, the names of all his contacts, including exposing any pseudonyms. Maybe the right to republish his work for educational purposes, with appropriate ommentary. Just to get to the bottom of "House of LordsGate."

We should lobby hard to convince David Icke that the Mountebank is a Lizardian. Call him at 2 am. Act scared.

Say you are sure, and you can't give your name.

Marion @ 12

Odd you should mention House of Lords Gate. Were you referring to Moncktons' use of a portcullis device, very similar to the emblem of Parliament, surmounted by what passes for a viscounts coronet. I assume he uses it to give credence to supposed Membership of the House of Lords. Perhaps the Garter King of Arms should be invited to comment on its use.

The Monck is reather twitchy about his reputation. There are other instances of him logdeing complaints with the PCC and failing:

[His "outrage" at New Scientists coverage of him](http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTQxMA==)

*Viscount Monckton of Brenchley complained to the Press Complaints Commission that two articles published in the New Scientist on 16 August and 30 August 2008 â respectively headlined âAre some things best left unsaid?â, and âEditors must be our gatekeepersâ â contained inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. He also complained that the magazineâs editing of his letter of response raised a further breach of the Code.

Following remedial action taken by the magazine, no further action was required. The complaint was not upheld.*

And his "outrage" with the [Evening Standard who reported on one of his companies using illegal immigrants]: (http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=MjExMg==)

*The Hon. Christopher Monckton complained to the Press Complaints Commission on behalf of Consistent Hotel Staff Ltd that the Evening Standard had sought to obtain information through subterfuge in breach of Clause 11 (Misrepresentation) of the Code and by doing so had intruded into the privacy of a number of the companyâs employees in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code.

The complaint was rejected.

The complainant said that a reporter from the newspaper had gained employment with the company by misrepresenting herself and failing to identify herself as a journalist. He said the company accepted that there was a public interest in the question of illegal working, but under the Code subterfuge must not be used unless the information sought could not be obtained by any other means. In the present case, he contended, subterfuge could not be justified on the basis that material could not be obtained in any other way - the company had made it clear to the newspaper that it was happy to answer any questions that the newspaper cared to put to it, and had answered promptly and fully all questions which the newspaper eventually asked.
*

3 out of 3 fails Monck.

A fine Monbiot/Monckton moment, [from the archives](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/03/did-lord-monckton-fabricate-…).

Actually, that puffed up @#$@$@#ing toad. Seriously, at least Monbiot's a decent journo.

Monckton was obviously a crap "adviser" to Baroness Bitch, frankly. Probably brown-nosed his way into a position of repetitious sycophancy. His main claim to fame is his puzzle, but a combinatoric puzzle is easier to make than solve for the same reasons a cypher is easier to use than to crack.

He's a competent promoter, let that stand as his epitaph.

I'm calling this: You all know that Monkton will chalk this up as a win, right? He will say that his complaint was 'upheld' because of the two minor changes regarding the 'Nobel pin' and his proptosis. He'll work to create the impression that the complaints which were not upheld were, of course.

I can't believe Monkton argued over his House of Lords fib. LOL.

> ...hence his claim to sharing the IPCC's Nobel Peace Prize...

I guess we should point out to those who aren't familiar with it that the claim to share the Nobel is bogus, even if Monckton had been the first to spot the error. The Prize was awarded to the *Committee*, of which - just like the House Of Lords - Monckton is not a member.

It's almost as if Monckton wasn't part of the "in crowd" at school and he's overcompensating in adulthood...

Marion @ 12. Its no good trying to convince Icke that Mountback is a lizard as his grandfather (Mountback's that is) was the one given the heritary peerage when young Christopher was the tender age of five years. Everyone knows to be a lizard your peerage has to go back at least ten generations.

CORRECTION!

The PCC said:

>In addition, the piece referred to the complainant as a âswivel-eyed maniac', which he said was a discriminatory reference to a physical disability (proptosis) he suffered as the result of having had Graves' disease.

Now both Monckton and Former Skeptic should actually read Monbiots post!

Monbiot doesn't mention 'swivel-eyed maniac', it is Rod Liddle of in the Spectator that mentions swivel-eyed maniac!
Monbiot just provides a link to the Spectator blog.

Assuming the PCC referenced Moncktons complaint correctly, then the PCC was absolutely correct to reject this part of Moncktons accusation.

Further to my previous post:

But did Monckton complain about the Spectator comment?

Here's the bit that interests me:

>While the complainant may indeed have read the draft Copenhagen Treaty, he could not have known with certainty, when speaking in mid-October, what precisely would be signed in mid-December. It was legitimate, therefore, for Mr Monbiot to jokingly refer to the complainant as a clairvoyant. As to whether the Treaty referred to âworld government', the newspaper acknowledged that it did but said it was clear that the Treaty was not envisaging a supranational government to replace national governments. It was fair, therefore, for Monbiot to take issue with the complainant's expressed fears about the creation of a world government.

Now recall the ho-ha the denialosphere made over the PCC's judgement of the climate change adverts http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8571353.stm - they were happy to accept the PCC's view then - none of them criticised it. So now the PCC has ruled that claims of âworld government' are bunk are they still going to respect the PCC's judgement?

"As to whether the Treaty referred to âworld government', the newspaper acknowledged that it did but said it was clear that the Treaty was not envisaging a supranational government to replace national governments. "

Actually I weas disappointed that they gave the appearance of conceding the point without making crystal clear that the term "world governance" is entirely different to "world government" and recommendng the good Visocunt consult a dictionary.

What chek@23 said.

Jeremy:

Here's a work-around. Before I go to Icke, I ask the Discount Mountebank of Benchwarmer "Some have said, Lord Monckton, that your family's position goes back as far as 10 generations. Would that be a mistake?"

"It would not, but I can say no more, as heraldry and geneology are complex subjects."

And I record that.

Marion @ 12
Odd you should mention House of Lords Gate. Were you referring to Moncktons' use of a portcullis device, very similar to the emblem of Parliament, surmounted by what passes for a viscounts coronet. I assume he uses it to give credence to supposed Membership of the House of Lords. Perhaps the Garter King of Arms should be invited to comment on its use.

Already done, they investigated it and I haven't seen him use it recently.
"The crowned portcullis is the emblem of the two Houses of Parliament; a House of Commons factsheet describing the history of the emblem is online at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g09.pdf. Use of the emblem by others is regulated by the two Houses, in accordance with the general principles governing parliamentary copyright.

In addition, I can confirm that Lord Monckton of Brenchley (who only succeeded to his title in 2006) is not a Member of the House of Lords.

The Clerk of the Parliaments, who heads the House of Lords administration, will be looking into this, which may take some time. However, I would like to thank you for bringing this to our attention."

> ...I haven't seen him use it recently.

I'm pretty sure it was used during Monckton's recent tour of Australia, possibly even in the debate with Tim Lambert.

Yes, I'm sure I recall seeing it then, too. What a silly bugger he is.

Vince@28:

Careful, mate! You're liable to have the UK Gay Rights people file a complaint against you for associating the Discount Munchkin with them, to the detriment of their good name and sterling reputation!

Abraham vs Monckton:

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

John Abraham knocks Monckton out of the ring with this thorough trashing of Moncktons presentation.

Tim: You need to post something on this.