UsForThem - “opaque lobbyists” with links to the far right?

[LacyEdge]

Prof Alice Roberts started an interesting Twitter thread discussing this, linking to Nafeez Ahmed’s article about U4T in Byline Times. Replies suggest UsForThem aren’t a concerned parents’ group at all and are linked with a far right funded group.

Well I never.

twitter.com/theAliceRoberts/status/1352993581414424576

@JanuaryChill

I didn't claim all their job titles were false, what I was pointing out was that they will have written those job titles themselves. Anyone who describes themself as eg, an 'amateur singer', is probably getting an income from some other activity....

The same goes for descriptions on Linkedin unless endorsed by several credible others.

Retired paediatrician, amateur singer

Retired probably helps

I doubt they’re constructing fake identities on LinkedIn if they want to work. Have a google I think your mind is running away

"I'd like you to reconsider."

W.T.A.F did I just read?

Oh, OK, then, if you say so.

And, yes, Marsha, I get that there may be 'civilians' involved.

They may well passionately believe in individual Liberty and that schools reopening is a mental health issue.

But the people providing the power, presence, and clout for this group really are new right economic libertarians.

Come on, you remember the poor left-wing saps who were pulled into BeLeave, and were then aghast when they realised a.) where the money was coming from b.) what the real agenda was.

Same tactic; different saps.

@thecatfromjapan

It's a standard tactic of the New Right to find organisations and fund them, boost them, help run them.

It's also a standard tactic of the groups around the old ERG to have a really dispersed network of inter-related individuals involved in a tangle of organisations.

Look at any article about the Tufton Street group.

Better still, read p. 38 of 'Reaganland', which goes into some detail about how this mode of organising arose and was developed.

I'm fed up with these right-wing front groups, who amazingly, despite seeming to be 'grassroots', are somehow gifted enormous lobbying and press access.

Come on, when you were involved in a project to try and get something done about some issue, did you miraculously find you were able to get traction in mainstream media and get face-time with the government?

No.

Because that's not normal.

They are a front.

At the very least, they willingly allowed themselves to be co-opted.

But a front is more likely.

I agree.

@Temptashun

I’d actually use your argument against us for them not pro then.

Weird.

@Temptashun

It's also not a great strategy to win an argument - to dismiss everyone else as not having 'done the research'. It's a weird anti vax type thing to say.

Sorry you feel bad about not being able to/not wanting to breastfeed and are somehow shoehorning all those old feelings of inadequacy into this unrelated debate.

Oh, I'm anti-vax now, too, am I?
Astroturfing, right wing, conspiracy theorist anti-vaxer.

Also - learn to read. It's not me who couldn't breast feed, and I would never have felt guilty about it anyway, because I know that there's little fucking difference.

It's obviously a touchy subject for you. I hope you're ok.

I didn't say you were anti vax just that the idea of someone being self-educated on a topic using the internet is the same line of thinking.

Honestly you don't sound like you're ok.

I get that there may be 'civilians' involved.

I think Robert Halfon and the children’s commissioner fall under this.

Harming not hanging!!!!!!!

[quote ineedaholidaynow]@Temptashun so when schools were open fully and bubbles were bursting left, right and centre and transmission rates rising scarily, how is that good for children?

Have you got any research on how children are being harmed in countries where masks are being used in schools![/quote]
It was bad for children because they were being tested constantly and sent home to isolate constantly due to a test which cannot distinguish between a live infection and an inactive one.
It's bad for children because they'e had the fear of god put into them for a virus which they barely notice.
It's bad for children because they've been told that they could be responsible for killing their parents just for going to school and getting too close to someone, which prior to 2020 would be considered abuse.

If they'd just been allowed to go to school and stay off if they felt under the weather (just like in Sweden) then it would be bad for them at all.

Here's just one of the negatives of putting kids in masks - being able to see faces is crucial for developing communication skills, especially at key points in child development. I believe that SALTs are already reporting an increase in caseload which they attribute to masks and other lockdown negatives.

Again - is this really worth the potential benefits of masks? To answer fully you'd need to know the transmission benefits of masks, which I'm not sure people really do. I think this because if they really did, there's no way that any sane person would be be pushing for masks on kids given the risk of stunting their development.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/26/school-masks-potential-damage-speech-development-far-greater/

I didn't say you were anti vax just that the idea of someone being self-educated on a topic using the internet is the same line of thinking.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
No wonder the country is in this state if people think that doing their own reading is akin to being an anti-vaxxer.

Makes a lot of sense, actually.

Cat it’s like your first day back and you’ve already got a live one.

In wanting the schools closed, or open but with masks and social distancing, (both of which harm children's development, and don't really do much) you're doing the same thing.

You don't have any evidence that wearing masks or social distancing 'harms children's development'. That's just your opinion. I don't really value your opinion I'm afraid.

I know you'll never see it.

Can you hear how this sounds like you think you know better than everyone else? It's so cringey.

But I want you to know that I think, although it's being done with the best of intentions - you are making extremely bad, harmful choices for your children.
I'd like you to reconsider.

You think one thing, I think another. I've no concerns about my children. You're just an internet oddball with an axe to grind. I'll take the opinions of senior medical professionals and scientists over yours I'm afraid.

@Temptashun

I didn't say you were anti vax just that the idea of someone being self-educated on a topic using the internet is the same line of thinking.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
No wonder the country is in this state if people think that doing their own reading is akin to being an anti-vaxxer.

Makes a lot of sense, actually.

If THAT'S the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard then maybe you really should read more stuff on the internet!

And yes, the complete lack of self awareness and use of phrases like 'doing their own reading' is very anti vax. Again, not saying you are one, just that, like them, your argument lacks any scientific or social merit.

@thecatfromjapan

And, yes, Marsha, I get that there may be 'civilians' involved.

They may well passionately believe in individual Liberty and that schools reopening is a mental health issue.

But the people providing the power, presence, and clout for this group really are new right economic libertarians.

Come on, you remember the poor left-wing saps who were pulled into BeLeave, and were then aghast when they realised a.) where the money was coming from b.) what the real agenda was.

Same tactic; different saps.

I’m glad you can see they are ‘civilians’ ie normal people.

But state schools are not typically where attention of this kind goes from Cons. For a long time posters have claimed MPs don’t care as dc in private (not always true). There are likely personal connections which as I say override the unusual tie.

I'm in their Facebook group - not because I agree with them, I just find them so fascinating to watch. Like monkeys at the zoo.

My gut feeling has always been that there's a mix of the badly educated, conspiracy theorist, the selfish and genuinely struggling parents in that group. No doubt there's far right folks in there too trying (and succeeding) to influence minds in a particular way. Conspiracy theories seem to have grown very strong over time.

To answer a few PP who sneered that Owen Jones equivalent (seriously?) Alice Roberts would call U4T far right: she didn’t. Respondents to her original tweet did that, and provided links. Click the link in the OP and scroll down.

Btw the actual FB group could be anyone - not unlike here you’ll get strong extreme views. They will likely dominate as probably even lower moderation.

But op claim is separate to this,

You don't have any evidence that wearing masks or social distancing 'harms children's development'. That's just your opinion. I don't really value your opinion I'm afraid.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/26/school-masks-potential-damage-speech-development-far-greater/

Can you hear how this sounds like you think you know better than everyone else? It's so cringey.

This is far too important to worry about what people think of me.

You think one thing, I think another. I've no concerns about my children. You're just an internet oddball with an axe to grind. I'll take the opinions of senior medical professionals and scientists over yours I'm afraid

Actually, I'd have way less of a problem if people could just make choices for their own children. You want to do this to they? have at it.

But you're trying to make this happen for all children. that's not ok.

What about masks in secondary schools, temptashun?

Us4Them always have such a primary focus.

your argument lacks any scientific or social merit
Are you refuting both the nature article and the SAGE scientists?

(It blows my mind that people don't instinctively know that covering children's faces is a bad idea for their social development).

noble doesn't have to refute that article.

I did.

With the help of the BMJ.

"But you're trying to make this happen for all children. that's not ok."

And is that not exactly what U4T are doing then? Not to mention the far-reaching effect on the wider community of their batshit plan?

@Temptashun

your argument lacks any scientific or social merit Are you refuting both the nature article and the SAGE scientists?

(It blows my mind that people don't instinctively know that covering children's faces is a bad idea for their social development).

It blows my mind that anyone is scientifically illiterate enough to think an airborne virus is best ignored.

@thecatfromjapan

noble doesn't have to refute that article.

I did.

With the help of the BMJ.

It's cute that you think you refuted it.