John Simkin

I see Alan Bennett's History Boys won six Tony awards, equalling the benchmark set by Death of a Salesman more than 50 years ago. The play has been very successful in attracting large audiences on Broadway. Who would have thought that a play about students studying history 'A' levels would have been so popular. Do you think it will increase the number of students opting to do history?

I see Alan Bennett's History Boys won six Tony awards, equalling the benchmark set by Death of a Salesman more than 50 years ago. The play has been very successful in attracting large audiences on Broadway. Who would have thought that a play about students studying history 'A' levels would have been so popular. Do you think it will increase the number of students opting to do history?

In a joint letter to the new education secretary, Alan Johnson, senior representatives of the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches said secondary schools were limiting children's "spiritual and moral" development by failing to organize daily acts of worship. Most of the schools that I taught in did not have a daily act of worship. The main reason for this was a lack of large rooms. As a result, acts of worship only took place a couple of times a week. However, as a non-believer, I always felt uneasy about the religious aspects of school assembly. My main objection was the dogmatic style of presenting this information. I gave several assemblies myself but always provided moral questions rather than presenting moral answers. What do other teachers think about daily acts of worship?

It is claimed that the government is considering giving regular doses of fish oil supplements to children to improve their behaviour and concentration in the classroom. The education secretary, Alan Johnson, has pointed out: "The Food Standards Agency is conducting a systematic review of research looking at the effect of nutrition and diet on performance and behaviour of children in schools. This includes investigating studies that have used Omega 3 and 6 supplements in schools." (1) Do you think that fish oil supplements do make a difference? (2) Is this an example of compulsory mass medication? If so, are you in favour of this development?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/newschools...1780247,00.html Matthew Taylor, education correspondent Monday May 22, 2006 The Guardian Schools in the government's £5bn academy programme, which aims to create 200 privately run state secondaries by 2010, have failed to improve results compared with the comprehensives they replaced, according to a report. The study, by a senior academic at Edinburgh University, found the number of pupils getting five GCSE A*-C grades including English and maths has increased by 0.2% - equivalent to three pupils - across the first 11 academies. Ministers have repeatedly defended the controversial programme, claiming that the schools have brought about a dramatic improvement in academic standards, particularly the number of children getting five or more good GCSEs. But last night union leaders and opposition MPs said the government had misled the public. Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman, said: "This research pulls the rug out from under ministers who have made extravagant claims about the results academies are delivering. The truth is that their performance is much less impressive than the government has spun. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being poured into an unproven scheme." The government said that according to its figures, the number of youngsters reaching the benchmark five good GCSEs including English and maths at the first 11 academies had increased by just over 1%. A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills added that the academies' GCSE results were "outstripping" those of their predecessor schools, adding that if English and maths were not included there had been an 8 percentage point rise in those getting five good GCSEs. "This is the true measure of academies' success and the fact they are transforming lives for the better - that's why they're popular and oversubscribed." But last night the report's author, Terry Wrigley, a senior lecturer at Edinburgh University and editor of the education journal Improving Schools, said that some academies were diverting children away from GCSEs to boost their standing in school league tables. The study found that many children had been switched from taking separate subjects at GCSE to the vocational GNVQ qualification, which counts as four GCSEs in government tables. "There seems to be something important going on here," he said. "Of course we should value vocational as well as academic learning, but false equivalents simply let down the most vulnerable young people. It may be in the school's short term interests, and the government's, to improve exam statistics in this way. However, as soon as an individual applies for a job or university place, they will face problems. How many employers regard a GNVQ in computing plus a C in art as equal to five good GCSEs in different subjects, especially if you include English and maths?" According to Mr Wrigley the proportion of children taking GNVQ qualification has risen from 13% at the predecessor schools to around 52% at the academies. He said the findings would raise concerns about the government's plans for a new generation of trust schools - based on the academy model. "There are variations between academies; some are doing well and some have worse results than the schools they closed down," he said. "So why is so much success being attributed to business sponsorship? This is poor evidence on which to base the entire government strategy of academies and trust schools. Government thinking appears to be based more on faith in business sponsors and privatisation than any educational evidence." But a spokesman for the education department insisted the schools were reversing decades of educational failure in some of the country's most deprived areas, adding that GNVQs allowed less academic children to leave school with a recognised qualification. He said the schools were improving standards in English and maths for 14-year-olds, and that would feed through to GCSE scores in the future. "A more reliable guide to their success in improving English and maths at GCSE in future is that there has been a 9.4 percentage point improvement rate for English and a 12.9 percentage point improvement rate for maths in tests for 14-year-olds. Achieving the required level at these key stage 3 tests is an important indicator of future success at GCSE." There are 27 academy schools open and ministers hope that will rise to 200 by 2010. The schools cannot charge fees but they stand apart from the state system. Individual sponsors have a large degree of control, appointing managers and deciding the schools' ethos and curriculum. Sponsors were initially required to pay 20% of the school's capital costs, but that changed to £2m, or less than 5%. The remaining capital costs (around £25m a school) are met by the taxpayer, along with subsequent running costs. So far few sponsors have handed over the full amount. The government says academic standards are rising more quickly at academies than at the schools they replaced or at other comprehensive schools. Many of the schools have had good Ofsted reports.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/newschools...1796371,00.html Rebecca Smithers, education editor Tuesday June 13, 2006 The Guardian The government's flagship academy programme designed to raise educational standards will next month be subjected to scrutiny by the high court for the first time, with a series of high-profile legal challenges by separate groups of parents. One is being brought by a mother seeking to block a new academy on the doorstep of Lord Adonis, architect of the controversial scheme, in the north London borough of Islington. The challenges focus on an alleged reduction of parents' and pupils' human rights at academies - which are legally independent - and means that the regular education acts which give parents and their children rights in ordinary state schools do not apply. Lawyers for the parents hope to prove that the consultation processes for the new schools are flawed, because parents do not have access to the vital "funding agreements" - which vary from school to school - in which legal obligations on key areas such as admissions, exclusions and provision for special educational needs are set out. The central charge overall is that parents and children will have fewer rights at the new, semi-independent academies than they do in mainstream, maintained schools. There are dates lined up for three court hearings into legal challenges to proposed academies: in Merton, south-west London, on July 5; Islington on July 19; and the Isle of Sheppey in Kent, also likely to be next month. The challenges have been co-ordinated by London solicitors Leigh Day, working closely with David Wolfe of Matrix chambers, which specialises in human rights law. They say many more are in the pipeline. The fact that the challenges are being brought by parents is in itself a blow for the Department for Education and Skills, because one of its staunchest defences of the controversial scheme has been that parents are keen on the new schools. Academies qualify for taxpayers' funding of up to £25m after a cash injection of £2m from individual sponsors. There are 27 academies, and the DfES says it is halfway to its target of 200 academies open or in the pipeline by 2010. It expects to reach the 110 mark in the next few weeks. In Islington parents have won the right to a judicial review of plans to demolish a popular primary school to make way for a new four-to-16 "through" academy near the home of schools minister Lord Adonis. Hayley Powers, a mother, claims that the Office for the Schools Adjudicator, which approved the school closure, failed to take into account the fact that children's human rights would be undermined because the safeguards granted to pupils at other state schools would be lost with the switch to "independent" academy status. But the first high court hearing will involve a case brought by a parent, Rob MacDonald, against plans to switch his son's secondary school, Tamworth Manor, in Merton, south London, to an academy from September. Mr MacDonald claims that the school was not failing, and that consultation was rushed through. Local people voted 4:1 against the academy programme in a ballot held by Merton, but the council still pressed ahead with closure. Also expected next month is a challenge by mother of 10 Robina Allum, who lives on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent. She believes the education secretary's decision for at least one academy was taken on "a wholly flawed factual basis". The Department for Education and Skills said of the forthcoming legal challenges: "We totally reject the claim that parents or pupils in academies have fewer rights than those in any other school. The biggest denial of human rights is a bad education. There has been no successful legal challenge against an academy on the grounds that they are breaking the Human Rights Act." Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "If parents are going to such lengths in trying to find ways in which they can challenge and even halt academies, this gives the lie to the idea that parents are clamouring for academies."

Zachary Katznelson is senior counsel at Reprieve, which represents 36 Guantánamo Bay detainees. Here is an article by him that appeared in yesterday's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1795260,00.html On Friday night, three prisoners in Guantánamo Bay committed suicide. Two Saudis and one Yemeni hanged themselves. In a desperate attempt at spin, the US claims this was an act of war or a public relations exercise. The truth is quite different. Islam says it goes against God to kill yourself. So what would drive a man to take his own life, despite his religious beliefs? The answer shames the US and its allies, Britain prominently included. The 460-plus men in Guantánamo Bay have been held for longer than four years. Only 10 have been charged with a crime. Not one has had a trial. The men are not allowed to visit or speak with family or friends. Many have suffered serious abuse. Most are held on the basis of triple and quadruple hearsay, evidence so unreliable that a criminal court would throw it out. Yet the US says it can imprison the men for the rest of their lives. Imagine yourself in this environment, told you will never have the chance to stand up in a court and present your side of the argument. What would you do if no one would listen, if you had been asking for justice for four years and had nothing in return? How hopeless would you become? Of these three men, little is known. They were in Camp I, a maximum-security area where prisoners are denied even a roll of toilet paper. But we do not know the dead men's stories. While most of the men in Guantánamo have lawyers who fight for their right to a fair trial, these men did not. Until May, the US refused to even tell us who was in Guantánamo. But before it finally released the names of everyone there, the Bush administration secured passage of a law barring lawsuits by the prisoners held in Guantánamo. That means that at last we know the prisoners' identities, but can do nothing legally to help them. The men who committed suicide found themselves in just this legal black hole. They had no legal recourse, just the prospect of a life in prison, in isolation, with no family, no friends, nothing. They took their lives. So what now? President Bush stated this week that he wants to close Guantánamo, that he wants to give the men trials. Well, let's have them - immediately. The US has had over four years to gather evidence against the men. Surely that is enough time to prove guilt. And now it is time to show the world the evidence. As Harriet Harman, the British constitutional affairs minister, said yesterday, Guantánamo must be opened up to review or shut down. Will Britain do what is necessary to make this a reality? Because this is about even more than the fate of 460 people, it is about whether the US and its allies will lead the world by democratic example, or whether they will continue to give lip service to human rights and open societies, while denigrating those cherished notions with their actions. If the men in Guantánamo (and the other US prisons around the world, such as the one at the Bagram air force base in Afghanistan, where over 600 men languish in Guantánamo's hidden twin) did something wrong, by all means punish them. But if they did not, they must be sent home. Mohammed El Gharani, our client at Reprieve, was only 14 when he was seized in a mosque in Pakistan. He was only 15 when he arrived in Guantánamo Bay. Already twice this year he has tried to kill himself, once by hanging, once by slitting his wrists. Let us pray there is movement by the US to finally do justice, before Mohammed, truly only a child, or anyone else in Guantánamo Bay commits suicide.

More than a third of the world’s people live in countries where there is no press freedom. Reporters Without Borders works constantly to restore their right to be informed. Fourty-two media professionals lost their lives in 2003 for doing what they were paid to do — keeping us informed. Today, more than 130 journalists around the world are in prison simply for doing their job. In Nepal, Eritrea and China, they can spend years in jail just for using the "wrong" word or photo. Reporters Without Borders believes imprisoning or killing a journalist is like eliminating a key witness and threatens everyone’s right to be informed. It has been fighting such practices for more than 18 years. Reporters Without Borders, kept on constant alert via its network of over 100 correspondents, rigorously condemns any attack on press freedom world-wide by keeping the media and public opinion informed through press releases and public-awareness campaigns. The association defends journalists and other media contributors and professionals who have been imprisoned or persecuted for doing their work. It speaks out against the abusive treatment and torture that is still common practice in many countries. The organisation supports journalists who are being threatened in their own countries and provides financial and other types of support to their needy families. Reporters Without Borders is fighting to reduce the use of censorship and to oppose laws designed to restrict press freedom. The association is also working to improve the safety of journalists world-wide, particularly in war zones. It is committed to assist in the rebuilding of media groups and to provide financial and material support to news staffs experiencing hardships. Finally, since January 2002, when it created the Damocles Network, Reporters Without Borders acquired a judicial arm. In order to ensure that murderers and torturers of journalists are brought to trial, the Network provides victims with legal services and represents them before the competent national and international courts, so that proper judicial procedures can be implemented. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20

BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest arms company, is at the centre of a major scandal and is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. Barry George, acted as BAE’s agent during the government sale of two British frigates to Romania. Apparently, BAE paid Barry George over £7m in commission for this deal. The deal was arranged in 2003 by William Bach, the government’s arms sales minister. Ironically, Tony Blair has been lecturing Romania on tackling corruption before being accepted into the EU. Obviously, he does not think they are sophisticated enough in their corruption. Maybe he will have to give them advice on this. BAE Systems have a long record of corruption. Last year, it was alleged in Chile that BAE had paid more than £1m to intermediaries linked to ex-president Pinochet in return for arms deals. In 1996 a secret £7m payment from BAE to the foreign minister from BAE to the foreign minister of Qatar was discovered in a Jersey account after an arms deal to the state. In 2003 a whistleblower alleged that a £60m slush fund was being used by BAE to provide presents to the head of procurement for the Saudi air force. Is it possible that BAE have been involved in providing money to Tony Blair? Maybe that is the real source of Lord Sainsbury’s loans.

BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest arms company, is at the centre of a major scandal and is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. Barry George, acted as BAE’s agent during the government sale of two British frigates to Romania. Apparently, BAE paid Barry George over £7m in commission for this deal. The deal was arranged in 2003 by William Bach, the government’s arms sales minister. Ironically, Tony Blair has been lecturing Romania on tackling corruption before being accepted into the EU. Obviously, he does not think they are sophisticated enough in their corruption. Maybe he will have to give them advice on this. BAE Systems have a long record of corruption. Last year, it was alleged in Chile that BAE had paid more than £1m to intermediaries linked to ex-president Pinochet in return for arms deals. In 1996 a secret £7m payment from BAE to the foreign minister from BAE to the foreign minister of Qatar was discovered in a Jersey account after an arms deal to the state. In 2003 a whistleblower alleged that a £60m slush fund was being used by BAE to provide presents to the head of procurement for the Saudi air force.

I have to confess it was a set-up. Andy was my Lee Harvey Oswald.

This information above appeared on the Maria Oswald thread. I am afraid it is another example of Jack White rewriting history. The problem for Jack and Rich is that this story has been archived on this Forum. For those who wish to read the gory details I suggest you read the following two links: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2433 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2453 I should point out that I originally set-up the Forum in an effort to unite the research community. I believed that if you brought together the best researchers in the field, you could solve the assassination of JFK. At that time there were two main research forums: Debra Conway’s JFK Lancer and Rich DellaRosa’s JFK Research. Some people, like James Richards and I, were members of both forums. However, we were fairly unusual. JFK Lancer imposed no restrictions on membership and the postings showed that a wide variety of different opinions existed on the forum. I think that Debra deserves great praise for this policy. The JFK Research forum was different. Only members were allowed to view the discussions that took place on the forum. You also had to have your membership approved by the administrators. Reading the posts suggest that most members followed a similar line on the assassination. This was especially true of the Zapruder film being altered. I did not see any criticism of the theories of its key members. I therefore attempted to create a forum that would enable researchers with all different theories, including those who believed in the truth of the Warren Commission. I also wanted to bring together the authors of books that had dealt with issues surrounding the assassination. I have been fairly successful in this and the following are now members of the forum: Anthony Summers, Peter Dale Scott, Alfred McCoy, Joe Trento, Lamar Waldron, Gerald McKnight, William Pepper, Joan Mellen, G. Robert Blakey, Barr McClellan, Josiah Thompson, Matthew Smith, Jim Feltzer, Don Bohning, William Turner, Jim Marrs, William Reymond, Dick Russell, Nina Burleigh, Larry Hancock, Walt Brown, Craig Roberts, Daniel Hopsticker, Nick Cullather, David Lifton, Robert Parry, etc. I also encouraged witnesses and even suspects to join the forum so they could be questioned about what they know about this and other aspects of America’s secret history. This has included Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, Judyth Baker, Harry J. Dean, Adele Edisen, Vaughn Marlowe, Angel Murgado, Nathaniel Weyl (now deceased), Manuel Ray, Howard K. Davis, Daniel Marvin, Doug Caddy, Alfred Baldwin, etc. This attempt to bring people together with diverse views on the assassination has brought about some heated debates. Virtually every day a member emails me demanding that another member be removed from the forum. It is true I have promoted this forum and my website on the JFK assassination on JFK Lancer and JFK Research. I have done this when something on the forum is of interest of all researchers. I have also promoted events being run by other forums such as the JFK Lancer conference. I have also used the forum to promote books published by JFK Lancer. This is what you do if you are really interested in solving the case. I do not see this forum as being in competition with other forums. Nor do I think Debra takes this view. It is true I have contacted members of JFK Lancer and JFK Research by email. JFK Lancer has not complained about this but according to Jack White’s posting this was one of the reasons why I was banned from JFK Research. This might be the case, but I was not told this was the case at the time. The real reason for being banned by JFK Research was because of Bob Vernon. During the summer of 2004 Bob Vernon, who was a member of the forum at the time, tried to get me to ban Wim Dankbaar, Tosh Plumlee and Judyth Baker from the forum. He called them liars and claimed that as I was giving them the rights to publish their views on the forum I was using the “forum to brainwash students”. Why did Bob Vernon feel so strongly about the need to ban these characters? It seems it was to do with the James Files case. A few years ago he became convinced by the James Files story. So convinced was he invested time and money in the case. Now, like most other serious researchers, he considers Files is a hoax. I don’t know all the details but for some reason that has brought him into conflict with Wim Dankbaar, who had become the leading promoter of the James Files story. Vernon also has strange views on world politics. For example, he believes that the UK is actually ruled by Queen Elizabeth II (he calls her a dictator). As a republican I have no love of our monarchy but it is silly to overestimate the power she has. The post where I explained the history of the monarchy in the UK seemed to upset Vernon. Unable to put forward any evidence for his view that the queen was a dictator, Vernon, made a bad tempered posting where he said he was unwilling to discuss this matter any further and asked for his membership of the forum to be cancelled. This I did. Vernon continued to post his nonsense about the UK dictatorship on JFK Lancer and JFK Research. He also made numerous attacks on me. This include the false charge that I was a supporter of the James Files story (as Wim knows, nothing could be further from the truth). He also made the claim that I was using this forum to brainwash students. Only two members of these forums, Lee Foreman and Allan Eaglesham, came to my defence. That is understandable as Vernon turns very nasty when people disagree with him. This includes threats of legal action and home phone calls. In November, 2004, Vernon sent me an email asking to be readmitted (remember he had originally asked to leave the forum). He claimed he was a reformed character and he would not abuse fellow members. I sent out an email to all our regular members and asked their opinion about whether Bob Vernon should be readmitted. Of these, only one thought he should be. A couple said that they would not object but thought it was a risky idea. The overwhelming majority were completely against the idea. They argued that he would damage the forum in the same way as he has damaged JFK Lancer and JFK Research. Several of our most valued members said they would leave if Vernon joined. I therefore took the decision that it would not be for the good of the forum if I readmitted Vernon. As a result Vernon continued to post his attacks on me on JFK Research. On 29th November, 2004 he started a thread: “My last post about John Simkin and his bad influence on children”. It is a very long posting and contains the often repeated claim that I am brainwashing children. His main attack is on Gibson Vendettuoli. Vernon was upset by this posting by Gibson: I've heard a lot about Bob Vernon, some good, some bad. I don't have a real balanced opinion on the guy. However, from what I have heard, he has been a shyster in the entertainment business for many years. He pulls up the same credentials he's used over and over ("I uncovered Jimmy Swaggart's sins," "I managed Fats Domino and was in his documentary," "I made a JFK assassination interview with Dick Clark Productions and MPI," "I've been an entertainer since I was six," "I'm gonna sue Wim Dankbaar and virtually everybody who gets in my way," etc.). All I say is, you backed what you think is a fraud. Go out with dignity, find a new music project or an educational thing for kids, the things that matter - forgive and forget, live and let live; don't go out with a whimper, having your documentary on JFK "hoaxes" not picked up for distribution by anyone and continually posting everywhere as "Dr. Truth" when you're considered by most to be one of the biggest screwballs, liars, and cheaters in the entertainment business. Now, Bob, if you read this, I'm not saying I agree with others. I do find some of what you say accurate, as I don't believe Madeleine Brown's story or anyone of that nature. But please, if you're gonna go out with a lawsuit, sue the entertainment world for the attention they have reportedly denied you. Then we can laugh and forget all about it. In his posting Vernon revealed he had carried out an investigation into Gibson. He claimed that Gibson is not who he says he is. What is more, he contacted Gibson’s father and threatened him with legal action. He also reported him to Rhode Island State Police. Vernon also made the point that I am allowing members to break the rules of the forum by posting false information about themselves. It is of course was the sort of accusation that I have been trying to prevent by urging members to post biographies and using photographs as avatars. I accepted Gibson’s claim that he was only 14 years old and that his parents had refused him permission to post his photograph. On 4th December, 2004, Bernice Moore, someone I think is involved as an administrator of JFK Research, posted on this forum that I was wrong to say Bob Vernon had posted a picture of Gibson Vendettuoli on its forum. I replied: I can assure you there was a photograph yesterday morning. It showed a man of about 19 with an older man. Vernon claimed that the photograph was taken in some music session. He had got it from some website about a music tour of Australia that had been organized by a man called Ryan. The adding of the photograph might well have caused Vernon problems. Especially from Gibson's parents who Vernon was threatening him with legal action. As you know, it is very easy to remove a photograph after it has been posted. This is what Vernon has done. No big deal. I am just surprised that you are so easily fooled. Maybe you are one of those who still believe what Vernon tells you. Bob Vernon continued to make attacks on me on JFK Research (it seemed that at this stage his membership at JFK Lancer was suspended). It included this posting: Anyway, this is what Vernon said about the forum. It would appear at this point that Simkin has been caught in falsehoods himself, again. This is very sad for a man of his alleged educational background who also claims his forum educates children. Rich runs the most valuable JFK forum on the Internet, Simkin. The folks that come here are highly credible and provide accurate research to a community that has seen it all for over 41 years. Good folks like Jack White and Jim Fetzer and others here have forgotten more facts about the JFK assassination than you know. Of course, Simkin, your forum also has some online seminar posts by very credible researchers such as the meticulous Larry Hancock, the great Allan Eaglesham and others and the children who are unfortunate enough to be led or baited into your forum at least have the opportunity to read the work of these valid researchers. Sadly, Simkin, your forum features posts by people who, long ago, were sent packing by Rich and these valid researchers here. The kids that visit Simkin, like the poor misguided kid from Rhode Island, believe a lot of what they read there. These kids are very impressionable and their minds and the growth of their minds deserve the truth. The truth from their parents and friends and the truth from where they go to seek education. And that is why, tomorrow morning, I will be contacting the good folks in the United Kingdom that regulate and are the watchdogs for the educational system in that country. I will be sending them information regarding the problems with the Simkin forum that I see and have experienced and several other researchers have contacted me privately to ask me if I would consider doing this to try to help the children that are lured there. I certainly will. Be glad to do so. If any of the members of this esteemed forum have any suggestions as to how I should word my communications to the officials in the UK or have any further evidence of falsehoods being presented on the JFK part of Simkin's forum, please do not hesitate to contact me via private email and I will gladly forward your information along with mine and I won't even use your names to do so unless you want me to. I now adhere to Rich's request and I suggest strongly to you Simkin that you do, too. Besides, if you listen here and learn here Simkin, perhaps even you, one day, will have a forum as credible as this one. But you've got a long, long way to go. As I replied on the JFK Research forum with the following: “I am not sure who he will be contacting. However, there is no educational institution in the UK who has any control over me. Not that any educational institution would take any notice of Bob Vernon. We do things differently in the UK.” Later I posted: This is of course just another attempt at trying to stop me from allowing people like Wim Dankbaar, Tosh Plumlee, Judyth Baker and Daniel Marvin from posting on the forum. Although I may not agree with what these people say, I am determined to give them the freedom to say it. It is ironic that members of the JFK research community should use such methods. After all, one of the reasons we have been unable to discover the truth of these events is that the perpetrators were able to use threats like these to intimidate people into silence. I would therefore like someone to post the following message on the JFK Research Forum. I am an ex-teacher and so the Department for Education and Employment does not have a great deal of power over me. At the age of 65 I am due a pension from them so I suppose you could try to get that stopped. I don’t think you will have much success in this. In the UK we believe in freedom of speech and therefore it is highly unlikely they will respond to your request. However, please try it, it might educate you in the ways that European government's behave. They are far from perfect but I doubt very much if they would sink to those methods. Here are the details you will require: Department for Education and Employment Sanctury Buildings Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BT http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ complaints.peu@dfes.gsi.gov.uk It was because of this response that I was banned from JFK Research. Bob Vernon was soon celebrating his success at manipulating the administrators at JFK Research. This is a message he posted on the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup. So that lurkers will know... John Simkin of the "educational forum" for children was booted off of the JFKResearch forum, a highly credible forum, and he now has his cronies, Wim Dankbaar, a known fabricator of the truth (www.bobvernon.com/lie.htm), Judyth Baker, Ozzies' self professed "chickie on the side", Tosh Plumlee (the man who has changed his story a MINIMUM of 4 times in 24 years), Nancy Eldreth... That is the story of me being removed from the JFK Research forum. Don’t worry Jack, I will not be banning you or your supporters. However, nor will I be banning those who give you such a hard time on this forum.

A photograph of Andy watching England v Paraguay:

I was banished for criticizing Bob Vernon. At the time, the dominant ideology of your forum was to support the views of Bob over Wim concerning James Files. I expect Bob was making donations to the running of the forum and his views had some influence over Rich. Not that I was supporting the James Files theory. It was just that I was giving Wim the freedom to post his views on my forum. This is false. Rich DellaRosa was opposed to ALL the garbage of BOTH Vernon and Dankbaar. NEITHER OF THEM SUPPORTED RICH'S FORUM. Neither of them had any influence over Rich, and both repeatedly violated forum rules. Rich booted Wim, but I think Vernon left on his own after he sold all his nonsense to Wim. Most of the researchers on Rich's forum were opposed to the nonsense about Files and Judyth being spread by first Vernon and then Wim. In effect, the two of them, along with Judyth, were hijacking the forum. Rich played along with Judyth for nearly a year to see whether she could provide proof of her nutty claims. She could not. I find that I was mistaken about Simkin's dismissal...it was not for misconduct like Miller, Lamson, et al, but for cross-posting messages from Rich's forum to this forum without permission (another violation of rules), and failing to cease when requested. One of the persons booted from Rich's forum used technical electronic means to bring down Rich's forum. Rich was able to trace the hacking to a particular computer...but has never pressed charges as he could have done. Rich is an invalid in failing health and is not up to such nonsense. Jack

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an historian? (2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian? (3) How do you decide about what to write about? (4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your historical research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence? (5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone? (6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies? (7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place? (8) If you were publishing an updated edition of Deep Politics, what new material would you include? (9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies; assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

Peter Dale Scott was educated at McGill University and University College, Oxford. He taught at McGill University before joining the Canadian Department of External Affairs, (1957-1961) and the Canadian Embassy in Warsaw, Poland (1959-1961). Returning to academic life he has taught at the University of California for over thirty years. Books by Peter Dale Scott include The War Conspiracy: The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War (1972), Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977), Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993) and Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (1996), Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (1998) and Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina (2003). (1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an historian? (2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian? (3) How do you decide about what to write about? (4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your historical research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence? (5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone? (6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies? (7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place? (8) If you were publishing an updated edition of Deep Politics, what new material would you include? (9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies; assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

(1) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research into Jim Garrison would get you into trouble with those who have power and influence? (2) Did you have any problems having A Farewell to Justice published? (3) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone? (4) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in, and covered-up, serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies? (5) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

Joan Mellen is the author of seventeen books, ranging from film criticism to fiction, sports, true crime, Latin American studies and biography. Her early work was about the cinema. This included The Battle of Algiers (1972), Women and Their Sexuality in the New Film (1974), Big Bad Wolves: Masculinity in the American Cinema (1975), The Waves at Genji's Door: Japan through Its Cinema (1976). In 1981 Joan Mellen published her first novel, Natural Tendencies. She also also written the biography Kay Boyle: Author of Herself (1994) and a book about the relationship between the two writers, Lillian Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, Hellman and Hammett (1996). Joan Mellen, who is a professor of English and creative writing at Temple University in Philadelphia, has written for a variety of publications such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and the Baltimore Sun. She has also written two books about Japanese film for the British Film Institute, Seven Samurai (2002) and In the Realm of the Senses (2004). Joan Mellen's latest book, A Farewell to Justice (2005) is a biography of Jim Garrison. (1) How do you decide about what to write about? (2) Most of your books have been about the creative arts. Why did you decide to write a history book? (3) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research into Jim Garrison would get you into trouble with those who have power and influence? (4) Did you have any problems having A Farewell to Justice published? (5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone? (6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in, and covered-up, serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies? (7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

Even I would not go as far as that. But I remember Ferguson rejecting the possibility of managing England with the words: "If we had to play Scotland, I would want England to lose."

This goes on all the time (read Lance Price's book, Spin Doctor’s Diary). Take for example the report into the CIA moving prisoners around the world to torture them. The main lead in on all the "serious" television stations was an attack by the Bush administration on the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations. This is a way that the Bush administration controls news communication (it is also the reason why people rely on the internet to get their information). But of course, I am just a conspiracy theorist. I am sure you are right that a lot of embarrassing news will come out during the World Cup. As a result, it will not get the coverage it deserves. For example, reports on the killing of an innocent civilian by armed police because he looked "foreign".

This is clearly incorrect. There were also two very important E-HELP seminars posted by Richard Allaway and Russel Tarr. As a history teacher (and E-HELP associate) I would have thought you would have been interested in these postings.

Eriksson’s decision to take only two fit strikers (and one of them a boy of 17) is beginning to prove very costly. When Owen showed that he is still far from fit against Paraguay, Eriksson failed to replace him with Walcott, his only other fit striker. In the press conference afterwards Eriksson said that he considered using Walcott: “But for the first game in the World Cup, that needs more time, more training.” If he was not ready to play on Saturday, then surely he should not have been included in the squad in the first place.

Even if the top players may be a bit past their prime, Sweden's strength has always been the quality and the organization of the whole team, not the individual players. And John, you are a historian - what can we learn from history? Sweden has never lost against England in a World Cup ever - and has no intention of doing it this time either! When it comes to football, recent history is a better guide to predicting football results. If I was a Swedish fan I would be rather concerned by the failure to score against Trinidad. I know we were poor against Paraguay but we did the 3 points.

Congratulations Australia for scoring your first goals in the World Cup. The score flattered you but you were clearly the fitter team in the last 15 minutes. Once again the weather seemed to play an important role in this.

I was banished for criticizing Bob Vernon. At the time, the dominant ideology of your forum was to support the views of Bob over Wim concerning James Files. I expect Bob was making donations to the running of the forum and his views had some influence over Rich. Not that I was supporting the James Files theory. It was just that I was giving Wim the freedom to post his views on my forum.