David Young

From each according to ability to each according to need. For research admin stuff: @davidyoungres | 1/3 of @binariesband | He/him | #freepalestine

[Flying_Rodent @flying_rodent]

Cool story lads, let’s take a quick look at newspapers in the year 2015, shall we

[Tom Whipple @whippletom]

I tried the government's new AI "Jobcentre in your pocket" chatbot. Could it write me a CV? It could.

It also suggested that I should consider employment law and whether I've been discriminated against.

Key detail: I'm a parrot.

[David Young @lostmoya]

@AaronBastani "Don't siege Leningrad, take it" energy

[Declassified UK @declassifiedUK]

The UK has barred Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur from entering the country, with both saying it's in response to their criticism of Israel.

Yet Brits who have fought for the IDF can return home without any investigation.

Our campaign seeks to change that:
https://t.co/ctAGZEmANW

[The Fraud @StarmertheFraud]

This is very interesting.

Here, @ZackPolanski talks about disproportionate media scrutiny. He brings up Labour Together, Josh Simons and the scandal around Labour Together hiring APCO Worldwide to target journalists, including me. Before Polanski can complete his point, he is interrupted by @robpowellnews, who says that was appropriately reported by the media.

But that's not what happened AT ALL.

In fact, I can now reveal, for the first time, that an as-yet unknown journalist at the Guardian KNEW about this story for 2 years and didn't report it.

I found this out in from my Subject Access Request to Labour Together. I've copied a screengrab below. It shows that in February 2024, Josh Simons forwarded a series of emails to the journalist. The emails had been sent by Simons and his Chief of Staff at Labour Together to the National Cyber Security Centre.

You'll note in the attached image that the name of the Guardian journalist has been blacked out. But Labour Together have confirmed that they were, indeed, a Guardian journalist.

The emails forwarded by Simons show that Labour Together had told the NCSC that I was at the centre of a mad conspiracy theory, making all sorts of wild, ludicrous, highly defamatory allegations about me, my colleague @andrewfeinstein, and my family. The emails explicitly mention that Labour Together had attached an extensive report on which these seriously defamatory allegations was based. It also made it clear that Labour Together had done this after I worked with the Sunday Times and other outlets to break stories about Labour Together and Morgan McSweeney's unlawful conduct.

What makes this all particularly egregious is that me and @andrewfeinstein have had a long relationship with the Guardian.

Andrew had worked with it's investigative team since the mid-2000s, focusing on investigating BAE Systems and corruption. The Guardian positively reviewed his book, The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, on which I also worked. The award-winning feature documentary based on the book, made by recent Oscar nominee director Johan Grimonperez, featured a lengthy interview with the inimitable David Leigh about the BAE story. Leigh was the Guardian and Observer's long-time head of investigations.

I started collaborating with the Guardian investigation team in the mid-2010s, focusing on corruption at AgustaWestland. The Guardian also splashed with an investigation based on my work in South Africa in 2022, which had been covered by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Andrew and I had both written for the paper, worked on joint investigations, and also acted as sources for Guardian stories. There are any number of stories where we are not credited but where we provided key information or connected the paper to whistleblowers.

This is not to cloak me and Andrew in mainstream respectability or buff our credentials, but to point out that debunking the lunatic claims in the NCSC emails would have taken five minutes and a few phonecalls around the Guardian office. Perhaps then the Guardian could have reported on this despicable attempt to destroy the reputation of long-time Guardian contributors and collaborators with fabrications and conspiracy theories by the people on their way to forming the next government.

But that didn't happen. Instead, a journalist at the Guardian KNEW that Simons and Labour Together had been doing all this outrageous stuff to protect Starmer and McSweeney. For two years: while Labour Together was funding 100 incoming MPs, Josh Simons was getting parachuted into Makerfield and Morgan McSweeney rose to the position of Chief of Staff. And nothing was reported.

We now know, of course, that the highest levels of the Labour Party had also been copied into discussions about the mad Labour Together/APCO investigation, including McSweeney himself and head of Comms, Paul Ovenden (who was later forced to resign as Chief of Strategy in Number 10 because of revelations from my book).

Just how many other people in Labour knew? Just how many other journalists knew? We still don't know. Can't say that mainstream outlets have done anything much to help me find out; half the time, as with the BBC, they don't even bother to ask me or Andrew to comment the scandal before amplifying the exculpatory self-justifications of Simons and his ilk.

In the end it took brave INDEPENDENT journalists like Khadija Shariffe & Peter Geoghegan (rightly now nominated for the Paul Foot Award), @PulaRJS and @OborneTweets to break the story. While I'm endlessly grateful for that reporting, and this story breaking through into the mainstream through the dogged work of Peter and Khadija, it should never have taken this long, and it speaks volumes that it only really did so after it was revealed that the Labour Together/APCO investigation had also targeted journalists at the Guardian and Sunday Times.

Just imagine the Guardian had reported on this back in February 2024.
Just imagine the Guardian, which has NEVER, not once, properly reported on the Labour Together donations story, decided to look into McSweeney's unlawful conduct.
Just imagine the public had been made aware of the character of Morgan McSweeney and the nature of this political project.
Maybe, just maybe, McSweeney's wretched, scandalous proclivities wouldn't have destroyed the first Labour government in 15 years, opening up the way for Reform, and tainting the Labour Party with the stench of Mandelson and the horrors of Epstein.
Maybe Starmer, so coddled and protected by the Guardian's soft-touch reporting, would have been made battle-hardened and ready for governance by some proper scrutiny and challenge.
Or maybe we could have found out, long before this current crisis, that he wasn't up for the task.

But don't try to pretend that there is an equality of scrutiny in the media, and that the mainstream media is fearlessly holding the powerful to task with the same rigour that makes it to literally go rooting around Polanski's dirty laundry.

[David Young @lostmoya]

@My_Metro Is service on yellow line between Shiremoor and S Gosforth running today?

[Kyle 🚄 @KyleTrainEmoji]

PICARD: Data, shields up

DATA: Brilliant! Shields can reduce damage we sustain. Not immunity. Not hubris. Just prudence. It's not precaution—it's strategy.

[camera shakes]

WORF: HULL BREACHES ON NINE DECKS

DATA: Here's what happened: you told me to raise shields, and I didn't

[El Borto @bortinez_]

“We can always tell” 😂😂😂

[aria 🍓 @ariadotwav]

oh my fucking god bruh

[David Young @lostmoya]

Looool - Reform wins but the guy is on holiday?! https://t.co/bMPGjLbr6y

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Probably the funniest graph ever published by the FT: our 3 possible futures are either 1) infinite wealth and abundance, 2) human extinction or 3) 0.2% faster GDP growth 🤣

[Angus Satow @AngusSatow]

Rip-roaring success. On to phase three

[Flying_Rodent @flying_rodent]

Half the story: the Tories were very obviously and disastrously fucked no later than late 2017, which prompted a furious, all-hands-to-the-pump effort to prop them up that lasted until late 2021, when the lads felt Sir Keir had made it safe to allow the Tories to collapse.

[David Young @lostmoya]

Big yikes.

[Palantir @PalantirTech]

Because we get asked a lot.

The Technological Republic, in brief.

1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.

2. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible.

3. Free email is not enough. The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public.

4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.

5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.

6. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.

7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way.

8. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive.

9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed.

11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice.

12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.

13. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet.

14. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war.

15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.

16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk’s interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn.

17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives.

18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.

19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all.

20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim.

21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?

Excerpts from the #1 New York Times Bestseller The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, by Alexander C. Karp & Nicholas W. Zamiska

https://t.co/8igjazz1On

[David Young @lostmoya]

@SaulStaniforth Remind me again, James, when were things 'mostly transparent' and honest? Which system was this?

[Nimer Sultany @NimerSultany]

1. I would add: the argument is not really about right to exist as a state but "as a Jewish state". The ideological project of Jewish state totally overlaps with the existence of state. Israel can exist in this vision only as a Jewish supremacy. No Jewish supremacy–no Israel 🧵

[The Iain Duncan Smiths @TheIDSmiths]

I'm actually begging you freaks now - literally down on my knees begging, in floods of tears, spirit utterly broken - to talk about something that actually fucking matters for even just 5 minutes

[Zack Polanski @ZackPolanski]

This is Apartheid.

It's morally disgusting - and comes at the same time as Israel is committing an ongoing genocide.

To see the Labour Government defend Israel repeatedly will horrify the British public - it cannot go on like this.

[The Fraud @StarmertheFraud]

PAUL HOLDEN STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO INTERVIEW WITH JOSH SIMONS ON BBC NEWSCAST

Yesterday, BBC Newscast published a lengthy, forty-minute interview with former Cabinet Minister Josh Simons MP. The interview addressed how Simons, as a director of @LabourTogether, had appointed a firm called APCO Worldwide to investigate me and my colleagues.

I was not told by the BBC ahead of the broadcast that the episode was being recorded or aired. I was not approached to respond to the lengthy comments made about me or the small anti-corruption organisation, @ShadowWorldInv1 , that I run with my colleague @andrewfeinstein. Andrew, who is also repeatedly mentioned, was also not approached for comment.

I only found out last night, when a friend texted me, that the person who hired a major multinational reputation management firm that produced a despicable and defamatory report on me and my colleagues, and who reported me on the basis of these false and defamatory reports to the UK’s security services, was being given forty minutes to give his version of events on a major podcast published by our national broadcaster.

To be clear, the BBC has NEVER - not once - approached me to comment on a story that is, ultimately, about me, my investigations, my family and my colleagues. They did not approach me when the story first broke, and they did not approach me for this episode.

If the BBC had done so, I would have raised several issues with the way in which matters related to me were discussed. For example, Simons repeatedly stated in the interview that he instructed APCO to investigate whether my reporting or sourcing derived from a ‘hack’ of the Electoral Commission. The word ‘hack’ is used eight times in the interview.

At no time was it acknowledged in this discussion that this allegation – that I might have received hacked materials – is entirely false, and I have repeatedly proven it to be false.

Following the broadcast, I contacted the BBC to complain and to raise serious issues with the broadcast. I was contacted by the Newscast editor, Sam Bonham, to say the BBC would update the Newscast episode and further reporting to reflect some of my concerns. This has not yet happened with regards to the podcast, although I note some online reporting finally reflects a very small and limited sampling of my comments. I will wait to see if amendments and updates will follow. If they do not, I will be escalating this matter to OFCOM.

In the interim, I have decided to share the full statement I provided to the BBC, which is produced below:

I would like to put certain things on the record.

First, my reporting on Labour Together and Morgan McSweeney was entirely factually accurate and based on impeccable, legal sourcing. My sourcing has been reviewed by multiple media outlets, who confirmed the authenticity and legal provenance of my sources. Revelations based on my book, The Fraud, has subsequently been covered widely across the mainstream media, including in multiple front-page scoops, in outlets such as The Times, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The National and ITV.

The stories I produced in 2023 and 2024, and which prompted Labour Together's investigation into me, were subject to extensive editorial and legal checks. They were, I believe, entirely accurate reporting on matters of profound public interest, which included raising concerns about the character of powerful individuals like Morgan McSweeney. Considering the recent Mandelson affair, I believe I have been entirely vindicated in attempting to alert the public about McSweeney's past, including how McSweeney made use of £700,000 in funding that he unlawfully failed to declare to the Electoral Commission to procure power and influence for himself and Sir Keir Starmer.

Second, Josh Simons states that he never intended for APCO Worldwide to investigate me or my journalistic colleagues. However, a copy of the contract between APCO Worldwide and Labour Together, addressed to Simons, has now been published. The contract sets out a scope of work written in plain English.

It states that APCO will 'investigate the sourcing, funding, origins of a Sunday Times article as well as upcoming works by authors Paul Holden and Matt Taibbi.' The contract then states that the aim of the APCO investigation will be to 'provide a body of evidence that could be packaged up in the media in order to create narratives that would proactively undermine any future attacks on Labour Together.' The contract then sets out a range of potentially invasive investigative methods that will be used to generate this 'package', including 'financial investigations' and 'human intelligence investigations.' I provide the full text of this contract below.

This contract is clear. APCO were hired to investigate me to produce materials that would 'proactively undermine' my factually accurate, public interest reporting. They would use a range of investigative techniques to do so. APCO then did exactly as was suggested in the contract, using these investigative methods to "investigate" me. This investigation has caused me and my family significant anxiety and distress.

Third, Josh Simons was provided with a report called Operation Cannon. It is the result of a lengthy investigation into me and my colleagues by APCO Worldwide. I have seen a copy of this report. It makes a series of extremely defamatory and utterly false allegations against me. It identifies my home address and sets out private information about my family. I cannot express how profoundly shocking, outrageous and defamatory this report truly is.

Simons may claim he never intended for APCO to investigate me, but on receipt of this despicable report, he then chose to use it. He submitted sections of the report to the National Cyber Security Centre to convince them to investigate me. The Guardian has published the email correspondence in which Simons repeated some of the substance of the allegations in the APCO reports.

Fourth, multiple media freedom advocacy organisations, including the NUJ, have strongly criticised the APCO investigation and these related matters. They have all, to my mind correctly, strongly criticised Labour Together and APCO for investigating journalists producing factually accurate reporting in the public interest.

Finally, I am still reviewing the Newscast interview. I will be responding in due course and I hope that the BBC will, this time, give me the platform to set out what really happened and why.

Text of Contract Between Labour Together and APCO Worldwide, addressed to Josh Simons

Dear Mr Simons

We are pleased that you have selected APCO Worldwide Limited (“APCO”) to provide the following scope of work (“services”) during Term:

APCO will devise a concise strategy to aid Labour Together. APCO will investigate the sourcing, funding and origins of a Sunday Times article about Labour Together, as well as upcoming works by authors Paul Holden and Matt Taibbi – to establish who and what are behind the coordinated attacks on Labour Together. The approach should provide a body of evidence that could be packaged up for use in the media in order to create narratives that would proactively undermine any future attacks on Labour Together. The material can also inform any future legal strategy that Labour Together might wish to pursue against any of these parties.

The work will include:

• Open Source Investigations (OSINT): Recovery and Preservation of Evidence
• Human Intelligence Investigation (HUMINT): Recovery and Preservation of Evidence
• Financial Investigation: Forensic Accounting Focus
• Digital Forensics Investigation: Recovery and Preservation of Evidence
• Stakeholder Outreach
• Media Packaging and Dissemination