Forum Topic

Conservative staff running vile racist anti-ULEZ FB groups

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuse?CMP=share_btn_urlQuite shameful and desperate stuff from the Conservatives uncovered by a Greenpeace investigation. But hardly surprising to anybody who has had the remotest of involvements in the Chiswick road wars. Our local closed member Facebook group, OneChiswick, has been disseminating hate against proponents of clean air and safer streets for four years and some of their members are no doubt involved in the groups adopting similar tactics against ULEZ.And our local Councillors have been active in spreading the same hate and conspiracy theories described in this article. You have to wonder why they are so motivated to stop clean air and safer streets schemes that they would lower themselves to this level and risk the damage to their reputations and careers.  Extracts from the article below for those who do not wish to click the URL. "Ami McCarthy, political campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: “These groups are an absolute cesspit of vile racism and hate speech, as well as a breeding ground for dangerous conspiracy theories. That they’re being managed by Conservative operatives speaks volumes about the direction in which the party has gone, and just how toxic these anti-Ulez campaigns have become. The party should launch a full investigation into this whole shameful scandal and everyone involved.”"Conservative party staff and activists are secretly operating a network of Facebook groups that have become a hotbed of racism, misinformation and support for criminal damage.An investigation has identified 36 groups that appear to be separate grassroots movements opposing the expansion of ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) schemes to reduce air pollution. They do not say they were set up by the Conservatives as part of a coordinated political campaign.The closed groups – which have a combined membership of 38,000 – have been a forum for Islamophobic attacks on Labour’s London mayor Sadiq Khan, with members calling him a “terrorist sympathiser” and a “khaki punt” and saying they would pay to get him “popped”. Other posts promote white supremacist slogans, antisemitic conspiracy theories and have encouraged the destruction of Ulez enforcement cameras."

Paul Campbell ● 303d29 Comments

Is that to me Brian, my wording is odd to say the least, I keep lapsinginto text talk where you use the shortest option.

Janice Evans ● 299d

My sister used to be the admin on a closed Facebook Group for a hobby - non political and uncontroversial. As it grew in popularity it saw an increasing number of posts unrelated to the group's theme some of which were of a racist or sexist nature.Off topic posts were discouraged and many were removed but there were so many there often simply wasn't the time. Banning people from the group was often ineffective as the kind of posters who were the worst offenders would usually have multiple accounts.Any action taken by admin would cause a significant amount of blowback often from people who didn't like what the banned posters were saying but arguing that they should be allowed back.One thing that should be borne in mind is that people who post unpleasant things on Facebook Groups do it habitually and are well aware of where the red lines are legally. Their racist or sexist meaning is always clear but they infer things to give themselves plausible deniability meaning that reporting them to the police is a waste of time.Facebook were also not interested in helping out. People banned from groups were free to badmouth my sister and her colleagues elsewhere on the platform.She eventually gave up contributing to the group that she founded reasoning that she shouldn't really be giving her time free to Facebook. The group continues to be relatively active without her although with the constant irritation of a small number of people who just want to be offensive as the admin has adopted a relatively laissez faire attitude. This seems to be the nature of online discourse.If the Conservatives believe that these Facebook groups are a good way to get the pulse of the nation, they are mistaken. There are a relatively small number of very active people who create an impression of high participation but the real numbers are very low.

Ann Clark ● 299d

Is that a yes?

Paul Campbell ● 300d

Surely fewer cars? Or are you referring to cars that have somehow shrunk in size?

Brian Coyle ● 300d

    You silly little boy.

Julian Pavey ● 300d

The Conservative staff and activists running these private member groups have the ability, some would argue responsibility, to moderate the abuse, racism, conspiracy theories. They choose not to. In fact in one local example of a community group a Conservative administrator has threatened to ban people from the group if they report racist posts about the Mayor to Facebook.

Paul Campbell ● 300d

Well they may be looking to amplify 'wedge' issues and the toxicity and racism is an unintended but inevitable by product of that. The tendency is built into the way Facebook works with offence, conflict and provocation given more prominence.Perhaps a more important motivation for them is data collection. The amount that Facebook collects is mindblowing and, as I understand it, running your own groups gives you more access to what is available. They are probably using this data to analyse responses to particular posts. The chances are that an insight into the workings of the minds of people who believe that ULEZ is a form of population control isn't going to save them from a poor result in this election.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 300d

I'm afraid that scraping the barrel is something that Humpty Campbell and his fellow velomaniacs are rather good at.

Richard Greenhough ● 300d

How? Is it not relevant that Conservative staff and activists are using social media in this way to influence elections?

Paul Campbell ● 300d

I am not a Conservative but this is really scraping the barrel from their opponents

Paul Fisher ● 300d

"I find it hard to believe the Conservatives are deliberately encouraging toxicity and racism in Facebook groups"It is a bit like, 'Let's pour out this petrol, and put these lighted torches close by.  If a spark from a torch happens to ignite the petrol, we won't bother trying to put it out'.It is difficult to see any other explanation for setting up 30+ Facebook groups.Facebook tends to be 'old person' social media and younger people don't bother with it much.  It is a way for the Conservatives to whip up their support given it is mainly from older age groups.

Michael Robinson ● 300d

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/13/mps-urged-to-ditch-ties-to-parliamentary-lobby-group-run-by-climate-denialist/Guess who!

Philippa Bond ● 300d

Personally I never visit other sites, but I suppose some will to find whatthey want and elaborate on it.

Janice Evans ● 300d

Sadiq Khan initially opposed the ULEZ expansion and then it was hard baked into to the financial settlement he was offered by the government after Covid so it is not really a sustainable argument that this is a policy he championed from the beginning. He certainly has embraced it since but probably felt that he had little choice other than to do so.It remains a flawed and ineffective policy that seems to be delivering larger cars to London's streets and therefore probably more pollution. It is hard not to see the hand of motor manufacturers in shaping it. The focus on diesel and hence a reduction in nitrogen dioxide seems misplaced given that most people would be exposed to a higher concentration in their kitchen, if they have a gas hob, than by the busiest road in London.I find it hard to believe the Conservatives are deliberately encouraging toxicity and racism in Facebook groups as this seems to happen naturally in nearly all of them anyway, even those dealing with relatively uncontroversial issues. They do seem to believe however that wedge issues like ULEZ will win them votes and the recent demonstrations show that they have persuaded some people who don't even live in London that this is a key voting issue for the general election. The reality is that for all the sound and fury about these matters online, there is only a tiny minority that get exercised about them, with most people still primarily concerned about traditional bread and butter issues. The Tory strategy of trying to ride a culture war wave seems to have been profoundly misconceived if the polls are accurate.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 300d

All afraid of upsetting their applecart or personal jet!https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/02/lobbyist-opposed-to-uk-petrol-cars-ban-is-director-of-fuel-additive-firm

Philippa Bond ● 300d

No other Governemnet that should read.

Janice Evans ● 300d

Also no blame on the airport was ther,  I'm all for cleaner air but on other Government have done much at all.

Janice Evans ● 300d

There are less cars further out but necessary as transport is poor in a lot of outer areas.

Janice Evans ● 300d

Well you've just repeated what I said!  Boris was FOR the original ULEZ I've never denied that!  The Govt had already lost several High Court cases brought against them because of the dire and illegal pollution in the capital - AND the LACK OF PROGRESS in dealing with it.  Govts and ruling bodies often have difficulty dealing with policies they think will be unpopular.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/21/high-court-rules-uk-air-pollution-plans-unlawfulIf you don't like The Guardian (which is NOT behind a paywall) then there will be other papers who have articles which if you are signed up you can read.And here is Boris Johnson Mayor of London being questioned:https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/supreme-court-judgement-against-uk-government-over-breaches-eu-air-pollution-limits    The polluting cars may be further out but that does not mean that the pollution stays there!  Some unfortunately may have not taken up offers that they could have done as they have swayed by a very self-serving vocal group who for years have only been telling part of the story and denying the rest so as to suit their own interests.

Philippa Bond ● 300d

Actually as we now know the flak came when Conservative staff and activists set up and administered private member Facebook groups spreading vile racist abuse about the Mayor. Are you a member of any of them Julian?

Paul Campbell ● 300d

No he did not buzz off leaving his successor to take the flak. He stepped down at the election of mayor after 2 terms to take up his role as MP for uxbridge. He set up ULEZ and was not against ULEZ but a supporter.The flak came when sadiq decided himself to extend the ULEZ. Not many were against the original ulez zone like they are now when it was rolled out further and the age of cars and the scrappage scheme came in. That was all under the current mayor.

Julian Pavey ● 301d

No not getting confused just reiterating the point that Boris set up the original ULEZ and then buzzed off leaving his successor to carry it out and take any flak.  He wouldnt want to be unpopular after all!  Despite all the added concessions I think the extension was brought in too fast and don't think that we have anything like enough cheap public transport in the suburbs.

Philippa Bond ● 301d

What ? I think your getting confused by ULEZ in central london and then it being expanded. Boris set up the plan for the central london ULEZ with the backing of the conservative party and then the current mayor was the one who rolled it out live. The issue with ULEZ and the protests and complaints come from the expansion which was introduced by the current mayor and nothing to do with Boris.

Julian Pavey ● 301d

No but his policy was to set it up and then to move out himself before it was put in place by his successor!

Philippa Bond ● 301d

I dont think his policy was to move it out

Julian Pavey ● 302d

ULEZ - Johnson's policy (planned under his administration). Oh, the irony!

Stewart Jones ● 302d

Or maybe I was being too generous. If not a moral compass then a sense of shame.

Paul Campbell ● 302d

Anybody who has the misfortune of reading the turgid prose of a OneChiswick press release can quickly see that it was being used as an astroturf group by the local Conservatives. And it really showed itself for what it was when David Giles used it to release the confidential security details of a Hounslow Council meeting which he said he had received from Councillor Biddolph. I think that is why he was kicked out of his position as Chairman of the Riverside Conservatives. At least somebody in the local Conservatives still had a moral compass at that point.

Paul Campbell ● 302d

Interesting that Chiswick resident David Giles is one of the admins of one the anti-ULEZ Facebook groups referred to by the article.Giles was formerly a prolific poster on this forum. I assume he has been banned because he spams just about every other internet forum for the area.He was reportedly thrown out of the Conservatives for online abuse but I don’t know if that was a permanent ban or suspension.He is also one of the brains trust behind OneChiswick.

Michael Robinson ● 302d