Undark: How MIT’s Deborah Blum Misreported “Schroedinger’s” Tim Hunt

Sexism in Science? Deborah Blum’s Storify Falsely Reported Sir Tim Hunt


A key part of the case against Sir Tim Hunt has just fallen apart. The story is no longer sexism in science, but integrity in journalism. Just as Deborah Blum and MIT launch Undark, some sort of science journalism venture (excuse me for not being too excited; I’ve seen Blum’s journalistic standards at work close up)  – a backer of hers in the Tim Hunt affair, a BBC producer called Sue Nelson, unwittingly blew Blum’s entire story apart.

On the 14th June, Deborah Blum struck back at poor Sir Tim’s attempts to tell the Observer newspaper he was joking. He’d had plenty of chances to explain himself in Seoul, she said. This was no stitch up. Journalists who were at that lunch had asked him about the incident, gave him a chance to clarify.

Journalists who were at lunch questioned him about his statements, gave him a chance to clarify. I asked him directly myself. 3/5

But after the first reports were proven by data to be false, Blum closed down and stopped answering questions. Which “journalists who were at the Tim Hunt lunch questioned him about his statements”? For Tim Hunt wasn’t a victim – no stitch-up here. Why, the sexist old snob simply refused to answer when the question was discussed! His bad faith, his unpleasant refusal to take responsibilty to journalists – all part and parcel of his victim-blaming mentality, we suppose. And so Deborah Blum, Board, WFSJ, reported that these journalists – at his lunch – had given Sir Tim a chance to clarify

Boom, lays it down

Said journalist Hannah Waters. Deborah Blum replied, with all the righteousness an ignored journalism professor admin* at MIT could muster:

Yes, had just had enough. Thanks!

In her Daily Beast article, Deborah Blum referenced her storify, including this tweet, and she alluded to Tim Hunt’s nonanswers:

They also noted that although Hunt belatedly called his remarks an attempt at humor, he had earlier defended them as “trying to be honest.” (That was certainly what he said to me among others.)

Here Blum is not talking about the BBC interview, as she references it earlier (Sir Tim Hunt stated in terms on 10 June to the Guardian that “being honest” referred to his own love life and not to any view he held of women in science). No, she is referencing her linked Storify claim that “Journalists who were at the lunch asked him about the incident, gave him a chance to clarify.”

But when did this happen?

Journalists are meant to speak truth to power, not cover up for each other. With rare, honourable exceptions, that is what the WFSJ/WCSJ did. All those who agreed to dispute Deborah Blum’s account of the lunch were ordinary journalists in attendance – whereas so many of those who backed her, or kept silent, held key positions in the WFSJ (which they never declared when supporting her on Tim Hunt).

Blum went to ground, but obviously kept talking to her anti-Tim Hunt allies in the twittersphere privately. Especially, Deborah Blum would not give any details that could be fact-checked by other journalists. However, this week, the BBC producer Sue Nelson, a long-time defender of Hunt’s persecutors, gave the game away. It was worse than we all thought – Sir Tim Hunt had been asked about the incident at a session focusing on sexism in science!


And this session featured Deborah Blum of MIT, Cristine Russell of MIT, Valeria Roman of the MIT Knight Science programme, and Connie St. Louis! It was sponsored by MIT Knight Science Program!

Yes, even as women journalists discussed sexism in science, including Sir Tim Hunt’s “deadly serious” call for segregated labs, and “gave him a chance to clarify”, he, the sexist old fool, high-handedly ignored them and said nothing. Deborah Blum told this to her ally, Sue Nelson:

I understand he was asked next day at a talk to explain during a Q&A and didn’t respond.

Mary Collins, Sir Tim’s wife, told Nelson this was untrue. But Nelson replied:

A member of the panel he was on told me this. Will get name/time talk to clarify.

Professor Collins checked with Sir Tim:

I will then check with him, he says no.

But Sue Nelson was not having this. She doubled down, placing a decimal point before her tweet to Collins so that all of Twitter would see it, and asserted flatly:

. Subject came up in next day’s science & sexism panel Q&A. Tim in audience. He did not respond.

And Professor Deborah Blum of MIT, and the Knight Science Writing program at MIT, organiser of the Sexism in Science session, sponsored by MIT, jumped in to validate this accusation:

That’s correct. Was raised by a journalist also in the audience.

Once again, Professor Collins tells them both they are flat wrong. Sir Tim Hunt was chairing the presentations of two actual female scientists, Drs. Laefer and Gabrys, at a paralell session for the ERC, while the MIT crew talked about ‘sexism in science’ at their session.

Instead of immediately backing down the BBC’s Sue Nelson insists her ‘eyewitnesses’ are right. Back to Deborah Blum:

Deborah was that the right session?

Blum says, again, with no prevarication or caveats:

Yes, that was the one. His appearance discussed by a number of journalists afterwards.

I know myself to be invested in the story of Sir Tim Hunt, and at this point I was almost shaking with adrenaline. Was it possible that Deborah Blum had misreported on Sir Tim Hunt from the very, very start? She left out of her joint CSL tweet, and her own tweets, the praise she later admitted Tim Hunt lavished on women scientists – admitting this only after Hunt had been fired from all his positions. So Deborah Blum’s partial quoting was already established. But had Ms. Blum, who spoke at that “sexism in science” panel – – under MIT auspices – simply reported falsely, on her own, and without checking, that Sir Tim Hunt was “given a chance to clarify” and “asked about it by journalists” when he was not there at all? As the session was on sexism in science, would not Sir Tim have looked aloof, stand-offish and just plain nasty for sitting there and refusing to comment or explain himself? Deborah Blum was angry – as she said herself. ‘Thanks, just had enough.’

Was Tim Hunt not where Deborah Blum said he was? Had she false reported from MIT’s own session?

Nelson said the revelations were a “damp squib” and that Hunt left his session and arrived late at the Sexism session. Deborah Blum favourited that tweet.

So I checked the metadata on competing session photos. The last of the sexism Q&A was timed 5:11. The last of the ERC session was timed at 4:27 – but that was before either Dr. Laefer or Dr. Gabrys began to speak. So, Sir Tim Hunt could have left their session early? I checked: Dr. Laefer told me had remained throughout. There were few questions but afterwards, as she said, spoke to each other and Sir Tim did an interview with a Kenyan journalist, then there was a conference dinner.

I asked the ERC if Sir Tim Hunt had left the session early and what time it finished. They replied in a statement:

The ERC hosted the session with Tim Hunt and two ERC grantees in Seoul on 9 June 2015 from 16:00 to 17:30.  The session went according to the programme (https://www.wcsj2015.or.kr:447/wcsj2015/program/program.php#url). Tim Hunt opened this session and stayed until the end of it at 17:30.

I made a follow-up inquiry about the interview:

We can confirm that he had a short interview with a journalist after this session.

This fit exactly with what Sir Tim Hunt and Mary Collins were saying.

This then is the point – before I progress to some speculation. It is a simple fact that Sir Tim Hunt was not at the “Sexism in Science” session as Deborah Blum reported that he was. It is a fact that Deborah Blum inferred a refusal of Sir Tim to explain himself to “journalists”. It is a fact that she both believed and reported based on nothing other than gossip and rumour that Sir Tim Hunt refused to respond at that sexism in science panel. Remember, Deborah Blum replied “that is correct” to the following:

he was asked next day at a talk to explain during a Q&A and didn’t respond. Subject came up in next day’s science & sexism panel Q&A. Tim in audience. He did not respond.

Deborah Blum not only verified this account, which was in her original Storify of 14th of June, as a fact, she embellished it with more detail:

That’s correct. Was raised by a journalist also in the audience.

She also confirmed that it was indeed the “sexism in science” session and she again, as in her Storify of 14th June, went to un-checked, unverified, flat wrong, “witnesses” to prove her accusation:

Yes, that [Sexism in Science] was the one. His appearance discussed by a number of journalists afterwards.

So let us get this straight: Sir Tim Hunt was never there, Deborah Blum accused him falsely, her Storify was false, Hunt was never blanking journalists at a Sexism in Science session with his two persecutors herself and Connie St. Louis.

He. Wasn’t. There.

And there goes all the credibility of Deborah Blum’s Tim Hunt journalism. Positive proof she false reported, didn’t check, passed on rumours, and falsely accused a decent man based on her own confirmation bias. What value to place on any of Deborah Blum’s anonymous “witnesses” and unnamed backers? She didn’t check and published a complete lie.

What do the scientists at MIT think now?

Speculation on a Possible Source of the Tim Hunt Gossip

I can offer some pure speculation as to the source of this sloppiness, this false accusation by a BBC producer and an MIT/ Knight Science journalism professional. If indeed their story was not wholly invented, here is one possibility. I want to emphasise that if this guess is wrong it does not affect the truth of the story here – Deborah Blum falsely reported, without checks, against Sir Tim Hunt – as did Sue Nelson, a producer for the BBC – taking rumour as fact.

But, and again with a note that I label this as mere speculation – the scientist @Shubclimate on Twitter pointed me to some photographs of the WFSJ’s own Ron Winslow, a respected science journalist at the Wall Street Journal.

He appears to have been at the Tim Hunt lunch, where Sir Tim wore a plain blue shirt, and Mr. Winslow an Hawaiian shirt. The next day, Sir Tim wore an Hawaiian shirt all day long, and Mr. Winslow wore a blue one.


Above, Mr. Winslow, it has been suggested, at Sir Tim’s lunch. Sir Tim wore a plain blue shirt to the lunch, as we see below:

hunt jokes


The next day, Mr. Winslow wore a plain blue shirt. This photograph was taken at lunchtime on the 9th:

_MG_0766 (1)

Sir Tim, however, wore an Hawaiian shirt all day. I was looking for this distinctive shirt in photos of the “Sexism in Science” audience.  I did not see it. But, at the very back of the “sexism in science” audience – as described by Sue Nelson who had discussed it with Blum – a man in a blue shirt with a hairline that looked like Mr. Winslow’s. Upon enlarging the photo, this man is wearing glasses.


I have emailed Mr. Winslow to ask if he attended the “Sexism in Science” session. He was organising the US/SF bid for WCSJ 2017 with Cristine Russell, of MIT, who was on the panel. And it certainly may not be him – no man may ever have “entered late” at all. Of course, if it is Mr. Winslow, he cannot be blamed for Deborah Blum’s false reporting. Until this week we did not know she referred to the sexism in science panel when she claimed “Journalists who were at #timhunt lunch asked him about his statements, gave him a chance to clarify.”

Whoever the man was – if there was a man – he didn’t answer any questions, or speak up, on the Tim Hunt lunch speech because he was not, in fact, Sir Tim Hunt.

As the debate about the dueling speaker sessions raged on, Deborah Blum finally stepped away from her assertions of fact about this  – in late October, five months after she made this accusation against Sir Tim Hunt in her Storify. ‘I was at the front of the room and didnt see him. Lots of buzz at the back about him being there. All I know,’ Blum said to Professor Collins.

But that wasn’t what she said.

And it wasn’t what she reported.

And it wasn’t what she told us was true.

And MIT and the Knight Science Foundation’s staff, at their own session on “sexism in science”, simply misreported, as fact, that Sir Tim Hunt was there – he wasn’t. She reported as fact that “Journalists who were at lunch questioned him about his statements, gave him a chance to clarify.”

This was flat wrong. It was simply invented. And it imputed a terrible lack of engagement to Sir Tim Hunt that he would refuse this at a sexism in science session.

Whereas, the truth was, Sir Tim Hunt was at – you might say – a feminism in science session, where he stayed throughout the session presentations of two female recipients of Europe’s top research grant by two actual female scientists.

Ms. Blum is now involved in an MIT commercial initiative in science journalism called “Undark.” Will she “undark” her rumour-based misreporting about the Nobel prize winning, cancer-fighting biochemist, Sir Tim Hunt, 72, a lifelong ally of women in science?

Undark that one, MIT.



  • correction – a commenter below points out that Blum was a Professor of Journalism T Wisconsin but at MIT is only an admin as a Director of the Knight Science Program. I am happy to spare MIT’s blushes in this respect. They have enough bad connections in the Tim Hunt story coming. This blog was first going to be about that, but then when I discovered “Schroedinger’s Tim Hunt” I could not bury the lede, even to examine the conflict of interest

ABSW: Complaint against other Board Members over Sir Tim Hunt

Sir Colin Blakemore, the distinguished scientist, has been the President of the Association of British Science Writers,  or ABSW, for eleven years. Earlier this month he resigned, dramatically, as the Association’s President over both its Board’s June statement of support for Connie St. Louis, and its refusal to investigate his complaint against her. Earlier, I published my complaint against Connie St. Louis which the Association has acknowledged. Now however I write up my formal complaints against Martin Ince, Bob Ward and the rest of the Board.

Part One: Formal complaint against President of ABSW, Martin Ince

Martin Ince, the President of the Association, announced Sir Colin Blakemore’s resignation in a short statement on the website. That statement is itself a piece of misreporting against Sir Tim Hunt. It is utterly without foundation to say Sir Tim has not disputed Connie St. Louis’ reporting. He has; and he does. The ABSW President has no right to misrepresent Sir Tim in this way. Further, I complain that his statement – short though it is – contains other errors of fact, and that he has assisted in falsely attacking the work of a fellow journalist, Guy Adams, in the name of the Association.

Mr. Ince’s misreporting of Sir Tim Hunt

As ABSW members will know already, this relates to her reporting of remarks to the Korea Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations by Sir Tim Hunt at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul on June 8. Sir Tim has not disputed the accuracy of St Louis’s reporting and has apologised to the Federation for his comments.

As a matter of fact, Sir Tim Hunt never addressed “the Korea [sic] Federation….”. He addressed a lunch for journalists that was merely sponsored by the Federation, of whom barely a handful attended. The lunch was in honour of female scientists but was for journalists and the heads of journalism associations. Every WCSJ journalist in receipt of a travel grant received an invite and others present were heads of journalism associations. This repeats the canard that Sir Tim said something offensive to a roomful of women scientists. Basic journalism should have the President of a Journalists’ Association check his facts.



It also inaccurate to say Sir Tim “apologised for his comments.” He never used the word comments. His apology for his remarks was very clear in that he stated that he was sorry for making a self-deprecating joke that had been misunderstood. “Apologised for his joke” would be accurate. Sir Tim gave a toast of between 2-3 minutes and insisted it was a joke, something St. Louis denied, and which his apology to KOFWST reinforces:

I accept that my attempts at a self-deprecating joke were ill-judged and not in the least bit funny.

Now to Mr. Ince’s more serious piece of misreporting, which carries great weight as it is an ABSW statement on the Association’s website:

Sir Tim has not disputed the accuracy of St Louis’s reporting

This was false. Sir Tim Hunt always disputed the reporting of Connie St. Louis. Sir Tim Hunt said ‘What I said was quite accurately reported,’ on the Today Show on Radio 4, which is a reference to the 39 words that Ms. St. Louis claimed he said. Mr. Ince, and the ABSW, must be relying on this phrase as support for St. Louis reporting as a whole, but they cannot do so.

For Sir Tim also disputes her reporting, rather than her partial quotes, throughout that exact same broadcast and the ABSW President cannot cherry pick. Here I highlight the dispute in different colours so even the ABSW Board can’t miss it:

On the Today Show, Sir Tim says he was joking , and that he was being ironic. He says he did not thank the women for lunch, St. Louis claims it was Tim Hunt thanked the women for making his lunch. Incidentally she wrongly reported this based on a tweet she misunderstood then stuck to her false story:

connie scott watkins J


St. Louis said the lunch was “utterly ruined” in her tweet. Sir Tim, in the Observer, denied that report saying nobody seemed upset. St. Louis on the Today Show said that after Sir Tim Hunt was finished, “there was this deathly, deathly silence.” Tim Hunt in the Observer said he finished to “polite applause”.

Therefore, and as a simple matter of fact, Sir Tim Hunt disputed aspects of St. Louis reporting in the same show where she made them, the show from which Mr. Ince cherry-picks a phrase – while ignoring all the other disputes of St. Louis’ reporting Sir Tim has made.

Sir Tim disputed her reporting to the Guardian on the same day, stating

I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings.

That disputes St. Louis’ reporting. Further, Sir Tim disputed St. Louis reporting again once the EU transcript leaked, and he used the word “report” as he did so, to the Observer on June 13:

Crucially, Hunt said, he then added the words, “now seriously” before going on to praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. “The words ‘now seriously’ make it very clear that I was making a joke, albeit a very bad one, but they were not mentioned in the first reports and I was deluged with hate mail,” Hunt said.

Those ‘first reports’ include that of Connie St. Louis.

And the ABSW mis-statement is the more serious yet since Connie St Louis herself acknowledges in her heavily edited Guardian article that Sir Tim Hunt is disputing her reporting.

Hunt now claims he added the words “now seriously” before going on to praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. “The words ‘now seriously’ make it very clear that I was making a joke, albeit a very bad one, but they were not mentioned in the first reports and I was deluged with hate mail,” Hunt said. He did not say this, nor did he praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. I wish he had; things would have been so much better.

So we see here that using the same quote I have pulled out for you from the Observer, referring to ‘now seriously,’ Mrs. St. Louis herself agrees that this disputes her reporting and she writes a whole article to fight back again.

When this ABSW statement appeared I asked if Professor Collins, Sir Tim Hunt’s wife, would correct Mr. Ince. She did so and repeatedly stated that the reporting of Connie St. Louis is disputed. She publicly asked St. Louis for an apology. But the ABSW has, nonetheless, not removed its false statement.

I complain that this is simple dereliction by the entire Board of the Association. They attribute something wrong to Sir Tim Hunt and they have not corrected it even when it is pointed out to them that they are wrong. Defending St. Louis is the subject of my other complaint. But when an Association of Science Writers complain that a leading scientist does not dispute the reporting of one of its leading members, and that scientist does dispute her reporting, to remain credible the Association must correct that false statement against Sir Tim, which is not that of Connie St. Louis, but the Association’s own.

Part Two: Complaint against Mr. Bob Ward.

The second ABSW Board Member I complain formally against is Mr. Bob Ward. He solicited my complaints against St. Louis be sent to him. Why should he do so when a complaint is to the Association and he has displayed a long-standing public bias in the matter?

If you want to make a formal complaint, email me on r.e.ward@lse.ac.uk

Mr. Ward has displayed public bias and has no right to pre-judge any complaint that is to the Association as a whole.

He, replying to me, falsely accused the leading woman scientist in the United Kingdom, Professor Dame Athene Donald FRS, President of the British Science Association, Master of Churchill College Cambridge, of “explicitly refus[ing] to submit a formal complaint” merely because she had not yet done so.

. Incorrect. has explicitly refused to submit a formal complaint.

Athene J

Even when Prof. Dame Athene corrected Ward several times, he refused either to retract or to alter his tweet.

Stop misrepresenting me, @ret_ward @ABSW. I said I’m not complaining AT THIS POINT as my email made clear – and why


It would be helpful if you would respond to my email rather than put out inaccurate and misleading tweets



Thank you for confirming that you have not submitted a formal complaint.

If you read your email you’d know that was truth NOT that I had refused- distortions do not help

I explicitly invited you to submit a formal complaint. You explicitly did not.

I have not yet done so. I have not refused

This is false reporting of Dame Athene’s position in an important matter, and it is also bias in the matter of Connie St. Louis. We can have no confidence in the legal requirement for ABSW to observe its standing orders if Mr. Ward is involved. I complain of serial misreporting, serial inaccuracy and wrongful attacks on the whistle-blowing work of the journalist Guy Adams:

Video shows last few seconds: Tim Hunt and some in audience think it is funny to be a self-confessed “chauvinistic monster”.

There is no video and the words used as quotes by Ward are not only nowhere in the audio recording, but nowhere in any of the reports as a quote

Tim Hunt does not deny his remarks or his male chauvinism, so why are you attacking the female journalist?

Sir Tim Hunt has denied St. Louis report of his remarks as partial and has never said in earnest that he is “chauvinist”, always insisting that he was being ironic:

you are applauding a hatchet job by a male journalist on a female journalist who reported sexist comments?

This tweet refers to Guy Adams’ entirely correct work on Connie St. Louis falsely and it implies Mr. Adams is a sexist:

Also untrue. Her Mail article had been commissioned when her CV was written but later pulled.


. And I am not an academic. Why not retract your false story and apologise?


. Where is your evidence she lied? Because you had a quick look and could not find her articles?

In fact Mr. Adams had searched databases and pulled press clippings going back decades. Mr. Ward cannot adduce any evidence whatsoever against Mr. Adams reporting on her CV. Ms. St. Louis did indeed ‘hound Sir Tim Hunt out of his job’ demanding the Royal Society, who had already put out a statement, go further and take action against him.

connie hound

Connie St. Louis was utterly explicit in her article for scientific American blogs that she intended to force the Royal Society to take action against Sir Tim:

I didn’t just call out Hunt in that first tweet, however, but also the Royal Society, the U.K.’s national academy of science, where he is a fellow. Sexual inequality in the STEM fields continues in part because the Society continues to take very little action. The British government has tasked the Society with addressing the enormous inequality experienced by women in science, and it receives vast amounts of taxpayer money to do this and other key science tasks. So a comment from the organization was needed. Yet the morning after my first tweet, the Society merely flagged its diversity initiatives but said nothing of Hunt’s comment. It was clearly inadequate, and I said so

Further, St. Louis retweeted comments attacking the Royal Society for keeping Hunt as a Fellow (!) and calling for complaints against him to the ERC where he held a post:

blum erc J

still fellow J

Mr. Adams was therefore entirely correct to say St. Louis hounded Hunt and he was also correct on her false CV on which she stood for election to the WFSJ, thereby cheating another candidate of a place on the Board in a fair election.

Mr. Ince and Mr. Ward should have no part in judging complaints against Ms. St. Louis. Indeed, the entire ABSW Board looks to have a conflict of interest given that they were all party to the statement in June, and I request that they seek a independent journalists from among their ranks who have no friendship or acquaintance with St. Louis and who has not made any public statement – blog comment, tweet, Facebook post or otherwise – against Sir Tim Hunt.

I further request an apology to Sir Tim Hunt over the false statement that he has not disputed the reporting of Connie St. Louis and a correction of this false statement on the ABSW’s website.




ABSW: Complaint Against Connie St. Louis over Tim Hunt, Erika Wright and her C.V.


We are saddened that such untrue claims about a well-regarded producer’s professional integrity have been made and published, and we strongly reject any allegation that the proper and normal processes weren’t followed around the 2002 award entry. Erika Wright made the award-winning radio programme and entered it for the awards under her name which was normal practice in the Science Unit at the time. With good grace she shared the prize with Mrs St. Louis afterwards, which again at the time was common practice.

The BBC’s second statement on Connie St. Louis’ false accusations against Erika Wright – emphasis mine. In response to a question they made clear that ‘shared the prize’ referred to the prize money, not to named credit or the award for the prize itself, so that there was no need and no moral requirement for Erika Wright to ask ABSW to “add [Connie’s] name to the prize


In this blog – because I do not trust the Board of ABSW, and because I want transparency, I lay out the substance of the letter of complaint I am submitting to ABSW against Connie St. Louis. I will later blog up a second less important letter complaining of the conduct and conflict of interests of ABSW board members Martin Ince (President), Bob Ward, and Natasha Loder and asking ABSW to appoint independent members who are not conflicted and have no friendship with Connie St. Louis to judge my serious complaints against her. In particular, those three can have no part in judging complaints against her as they have all been active against Sir Tim and in her defence online.

As an aside, it’s become clear that, as a journalist told me “real journos don’t join these things”. ABSW has a big-sounding name but a mere 139 members total, I believe. The business of people like Connie St. Louis is not science journalism but conferences about science journalism which are owned and run by pretendy organizations with big-sounding names like “the Association of British Science Writers” that actually have less than 200 people in them.

My letter of formal complaint against Connie St. Louis

Standing Order 16 of the ABSW rules provides for a complaint against a member for

“Wilful or frequent misrepresentation or inaccuracy.”

Connie St. Louis has done this in the following ways:

1. She falsely accused a fellow science journalist of ethics breaches, in a for-publication email that she specifically requested be published. The nature of her false accusation involved the ABSW’s own prize. Connie St. Louis, therefore, not only lied about her fellow journalist but abused her position as an ABSW board member and former prize judge. The ABSW must rebut this false allegation about its own prize and slander of the sole winner, listed on its own website.

2. Ms. St. Louis falsely embellished her own CV, stood for election to international journalism associations on a false CV, and described herself falsely on the WCSJ 2015 brochure where she was listed as one of only three keynote speakers, in a conference for which other journalists paid money to attend. She also attacked the journalist who wrote the accurate piece about her falsifications. She further blamed City University, rather than herself, for the fact that her false CV was on their website. She further wrongfully stated that the CV was merely “out of date” when in fact, the fake achievements listed were simply invented.

3. Ms. St. Louis knowingly misreported on Sir Tim Hunt and, upon being proven to have falsely reported many elements of her story, did not retract them.

Part One: Ms. St. Louis falsely accused another science journalist of moral and ethical breaches in a for-publication email to the Times: and copied in the NUJ to that slander

Ms. St. Louis claims, wrongly, that she won the ABSW prize for “Life As a Teenager” in 2002 (and later that she should be named as a winner on the award). The BBC producer Erika Wright was the sole winner of the award.

Generously, upon being asked by the Times about her false claim to have won the award, Ms. Wright (I assume) replied via the BBC that

“The awarding of the prize was in the producer’s name, but Connie was involved and as such it would not seem unreasonable for her to put it on her CV.”

To an email in which she was shown this kind response from a reporter at the Times, Ms. St. Louis wrote, (and, in order that Ms. Wright not be libeled, I emphasize that these allegations are wholly untrue, completely false and utter rubbish):

 For the first time the producer in the science unit Erika Wright broke with the traditional and ethically  way that programmes from the science unit we’re entered for the Glaxo smith Kline / ABSW  prize and submitted the programmes that were jointly made just in her name. She  realised that this was wrong and she  recognised my contribution as presenter and writer of the scripts for the programme and we shared and divided the prize. However, she neglected to ask the organisers  to add my name to the prize.
 These are two false accusations. First, that Erika Wright unethically and immorally altered the normal process of submission to claim sole credit. Secondly, that Ms. Wright – in subsequent years an ABSW prize judge – had wrongly not changed the name on the award.
I complain that not only did Ms. St. Louis slander Ms. Wright in a for-publication email to the Times, she slandered her to the National Union of Journalists, as she copied in Michelle Stanistreet at the NUJ. In so doing she attacked the career and integrity of Ms. Wright, as the BBC’s second statement, below, makes clear.

The BBC issued a statement which I wrote about in a blog

We are unaware of these allegations. Any suggestion that the proper process wasn’t followed around the 2002 award is untrue.

In the comments under that blog, the academic Paula Higgins appears to imply that she was in touch with Ms. St. Louis and that Ms. St. Louis did “all the work” “Connie did all the real work” on the series. I ask ABSW to enquire of St. Louis if she said this to Higgins. Updated: Higgins refused to answer this on my blog when asked directly, but now denies that she emailed St. Louis. I shall mention this when I write my second letter of complaint to save the Association asking the question.

Upon hearing that I was going to write up my complaint against Ms. St. Louis to the ABSW, on the matter of her false accusation against Erika Wright, the BBC contacted me – not the other way around – with a further statement that they asked me to publish in full. I do so here.

“We are saddened that such untrue claims about a well-regarded producer’s professional integrity have been made and published, and we strongly reject any allegation that the proper and normal processes weren’t followed around the 2002 award entry. Erika Wright made the award-winning radio programme and entered it for the awards under her name which was normal practice in the Science Unit at the time. With good grace she shared the prize with Mrs St. Louis afterwards, which again at the time was common practice.”

I note that the BBC have confirmed to me that by ‘shared the prize’ it is meant the money received for the prize – not the award or prize itself. Therefore, Ms. St. Louis should stop, at once, describing herself as the ‘winner’ of the ABSW prize for Life as a Teenager. While it is clearly fair that she mentions her involvement with this prize-winning series and contribution to it, she did not win the ABSW prize for it.

I also complain that Ms. St. Louis has changed her stance regarded ‘Life as a Teenager’. She describes it as part of her presenting career, only, here. On her listing as a speaker for WCSJ 2011 St. Louis distinguishes between shows she produced and presented and shows she only produced, including the “Life As” series

Her most recent programme on BBC Radio 4 which she produced and presented, investigated the use of racially targeted designer drugs by pharmaceutical companies. She also presented the landmark Radio 4 series ‘Life as’ which charted the science of life before birth until death.

PART TWO – Connie St. Louis invented experience and qualifications on her CV, and ran for the WFSJ Board on that basis

I complain that Connie St. Louis embellished her CV with a number of false statements and then insulted the journalist who uncovered this wrongdoing.

She falsely claimed to have written for the Mail, the Independent, and the Sunday Times – she has never written for any of them. Tweets from the conflicted ABSW Board Member Bob Ward indicate that her excuse is she was commissioned by the Mail but it was then dropped. That does not mean “written” for a paper, even if she can adduce a piece and a kill fee.

In her CV submitted to the World Federation of Science Journalists, Ms. St. Louis omits the Daily Mail whereas she includes it in her City London CV. This shows she herself was altering her CV and was paying attention to it. I am not placing a link to her WFSJ CV itself, rather than her cover letter, in this blog as it contains her address. However I shall link to it in my email of complaint to ABSW. Quotations in this blog are from that CV.

She falsely claims to be a scientist. Ms. St Louis has a degree in biology from Hatfield Polytechnic but the commonly understood term ‘scientist’ means one who practices science or has a career in science.

She falsely claimed membership of the Royal Institution was a “qualification”. It is a charity/ museum where anybody can pay a fee to be a ‘member’ and have tea in a café. I submit that this  is the more serious as her CV was listed for the World Federation of Science Journalists to stand as a Board Member, and foreign journalists are likely to have been deceived by the words ‘Royal Institution’.

From that CV: Under “Qualification and training”

I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (since 2000) and a Member of Royal Institution (2009) the Association of British Science Writers (since 1990) and The Radio Academy ((since 1990)

Guy Adams article contains this quotation about Ms. St. Louis’ use of the Royal Institution from its own spokesman:

‘Anyone can be a member. It’s simply a service you pay for which entitles you to free tickets to visit us and gives you a discount in our cafe. It’s like having membership of your local cinema or gym.’

Why would someone include such a thing on their CV?

Actually, that’s a bit of a problem,’ the spokesman added. ‘We have heard of a few people using membership on their CV to imply that they have some sort of professional recognition or qualification. But it means nothing of the sort. It’s very, very odd to see this on a CV.’

Ms. St. Louis falsely claimed to have secured the “first interview with Bill Gates” in the UK. That is wholly untrue and the achievement of another journalist, Roger White, in 1993.

And I successfully coerced Bill Gates C.E.O. Microsoft obtaining his first British interview to launch the series.

Ms. St. Louis interviewed Bill Gates a year after Roger White interviewed him. Even in 1994 there was an earlier Bill Gates interview, producers the journalists Stephen Arkell and John Wyver. And that is for broadcast journalism.

The first print interview in the UK of Bill Gates was in September 1988, by the journalist Alan Cane of the Financial Times who met with him for the newspaper’s “Monday Interview”. Other journalists who interviewed Bill Gates long before Connie St. Louis include John Morely in 1992 and Deborah Wise in 1992.

Ms. St. Louis therefore falsely claims as her achievement something that belongs to the journalists Roger White as far as broadcast media goes, and Alan Cane as far as print media and being the overall first person to interview Mr. Gates.

Alan Cane Bill Gates J

The links to all of these have been given to me by the journalist Guy Adams of the Daily Mail, whose important work exposing the falsehoods on Ms. St. Louis’ CV has been slandered by the Association as a “personal attack”. I have re-read Mr. Adams piece and there are no personal attacks anywhere in it.

In addition there are embellishments to her CV so great as to amount to deception:

She claimed to be a ‘regular contributor’ to an American program that last broadcast six years ago. Her own last contribution was in 2006, nine years ago.

I am a regular contributor to ABC News Worldview TV programme.


She claimed she produces a whole range of programmes for Radio 4, using the present tense;  the last programme she was involved in finished in 2008.

She claimed on-going involvement with government programs that had ended:

She claimed to be a ‘research scientist’.

Then Ms. St. Louis wrongfully attacked the journalist, Guy Adams, whose meticulous work exposed these falsehoods. This was wrong. She further claimed that her CV was merely ‘out of date’. This was false. It was not ‘out of date’ it was wrong because she listed things on it that were false; writing for the Times, the Mail (at all), membership of the ‘Royal Institution’, and achieving the first ever UK interview with Bill Gates.

She claimed to the WCSJ 2015 that she was an “award-winning freelancing [sic] journalist, broadcaster and scientist.” This is untrue.

I complain that in standing for election on a falsified CV  – and Martin Ince of the ABSW wrote her a letter of recommendation – Connie St. Louis cheated the fourth-placed candidate Oliver Dessibourg of a place on the WFSJ Board.

Finally, Ms. St. Louis wrongfully blamed City University London for having her false CV on its website. It was never an ‘out of date’ CV but always a CV on which she herself had listed non-existent experience and “qualifications”. Ms. St. Louis told the Times in her for-publication email:

Thank you for your text. I am away on holiday. My cv has not been changed. The information that was put on the website by the university was part of online profile trial it was inaccurate and scraped from places that were old and inaccurate. I had no Idea that this incorrect information was publicly available until I was asked about it last month. This information was removed as soon as possible.This profile is in the form of that the university stipulates. It is the first time I have written a profile for the university website. I have removed the classification of my degree to fit in with this format. I have an upper second degree.

It was false that Ms. St. Louis described the information as “old and inaccurate” she had submitted that false information to the WFSJ and run for election on it in this very year. So that was a lie.

I complain that it is wrong for Ms. St. Louis to blame City University London for the false statements in her now-altered CV. If the information was “inaccurate”and “scraped from places that were old and inaccurate” this is the fault of Ms. St. Louis herself. It was she who claimed to have written for the Sunday Times and the Mail, she who claimed to have the first interview with Bill Gates.

Part Three: Connie St. Louis Falsely Reported on Sir Tim Hunt.

Connie St. Louis’ reporting of Sir Tim Hunt’s toast in Seoul is comprised, so far as I know, of the following sources: Her first and subsequent tweets on the matter, her interview with the Today Show on Radio Four, her interview with BBC Breakfast Television, her interview with France 24 on June 29, her blog for Scientific American blogs and her article for the Guardian.

When I complain of misreporting, I shall do with a link to the source in which the misreport occurs.

1. Connie St. Louis did not report the whole of Sir Tim Hunt’s speech; she quoted him partially and intentionally misleadingly.

2. Connie St. Louis falsely stated that she could independently verify her quotes because Ivan Oransky had been writing his down at the same time ‘unbeknownst to me.’ Not only were she and Oransky seated at the same table close to each other, Oransky denies this in a podcast.

…Ivan Oransky, who I’d been sitting next to. Unbeknown to each other we had written down what we had heard Hunt say at the lunch. Our quotes were identical, which meant we could independently verify the story

Whereas Mr. Oransky denied that flatly:

Ivan Oransky: But right afterward, we said, you know, “Look, we have to do something about this. Let’s compare notes on what we heard”, as we hadn’t taken notes, and – wasn’t that kind of a luncheon, where, you know, we were reporting on it.

Oransky further told Buzzfeed that all their recollections were written “post-hoc” and could not be treated as quotes:

several science journalists created a “post-hoc transcript,” Ivan Oransky…told BuzzFeed …“I wouldn’t treat them as quotes, per se, given the circumstances, but they’re the words he used.”

It is a serious misrepresentation, and lie, to claim that another journalist had written down “what he heard Tim Hunt say at the lunch” “unbeknownst to me” – even though they were at the *same table* in order to make her own reporting seem more authoritative – this “meant we could independently verify the story.”

As an Association of Science Writers you ought to condemn this utter falsehood about Oransky and their reporting  – Oransky said he “wouldn’t treat them as quotes” and “we hadn’t taken notes”.

3. Connie St. Louis falsely stated that Sir Tim Hunt began his speech by ‘thanking the women for making lunch’ and then ‘thanking the women for making lunch because that was their role.’ All other witnesses deny this. Further, it is clear that she was not paying attention at the start of Sir Tim’s toast. Photographs show She had her translator earpiece in and on France 24 she stated she did not even know who was speaking.

My first thought was “Goodness me, what is that English person doing, saying these really outrageous things? I’m so embarrassed -all the way in Korea and here I am, listening to these ridiculous comments being made by a British man.” And then I suddenly realised he was Tim Hunt

4. Connie St. Louis falsely stated to the BBC that Sir Tim was not joking

I didn’t think they were intended as a joke, at all. I’d just like to say that they – you know, he went on for at least five to seven minutes

but admitted that she knew, in advance, that he was joking, because she said and tweeted that he had been ‘asked not to joke’ by hosts at the top table.

His guests had already told him not to go down this ha-ha route

She later tweeted:

he was asked not to joke about subject when he stood by hosts at his table and ignored them

This is extremely serious misreporting, as she insisted that Sir Tim supported, in seriousness, sex-segregated laboratories, whilst knowing in advance that he had intended to joke and been warned off it.

5. Connie St. Louis falsely stated that ‘after he was finished’ ‘there was this deathly silence. Very clearly, nobody was laughing’ and ‘everybody was stony-faced.’ Audio and photographs show this to be false.

hunt jokes

Further, not only did many people in the audience enjoy Sir Tim’s toast, Ms. St. Louis was sat at the same table as both the author of the EU report and the Korean woman scientist to which it refers who praised the toast as ‘warm and funny’. St. Louis knew, not only had plenty in that room laughed, smiled and  enjoyed the toast,  but people at her own table had done so.

It is not disputed that several people were offended by Sir Tim’s joke; several more thought it a faux-pas, but were not offended by it; and still others enjoyed it and laughed at it. Ms. St. Louis, however, falsely reported universal offence.

1. Nobody was laughing.


2. And so this – after he’d finished, there was this deathly, deathly silence.


3. And so, very clearly nobody was laughing, there was a room full of a hundred people, nobody was laughing, everybody was stony-faced. 


4. people expressing the same sort of frustration as I and the other 100 people that were in the room

6. Connie St. Louis falsely claimed, and one might call this racist at worst and condescending at best, that none of the eyewitnesses who disagreed with her account ‘spoke English.’

Eyewitness English J


Ms. Shiow Chin Tan from Malaysia, Ms. Natalia Demina from Russia and others who disagreed with her, such as Mr. Timothy Dimacali from the Philippines, and Mr. Pere Estupinya from Spain, all speak perfect English. As Ms. Tan said

I write for an English daily

And Mr. Dimacali said:

I speak perfect English, thank you very much.

And Ms. Demina said:

I am surprised to read Connie’s answers, as if we were in different Luncheons. Many people laughed and applauded!… I saw words about deadly scilence and stone faces in Connie SL report. That wasn’t true, people reacted quite differently. I remember that me and those who sat with me (men and women) laughed and applauded. For us it was a joke!

And Mr. Estupinya emailed me:

did St Louis really said that there was a deadly silence?
wow… that’s truly false.

7. Connie St Louis falsely claimed that Sir Tim’s toast went ‘on and on’ for ‘at least five to seven minutes’ when photographs and audio data prove his brief toast was between two and three minutes long. She has never corrected herself on this point.

8. Connie St. Louis falsely reported, in her article for the Guardian, that Sir Tim Hunt had not praised women in science. Not only do all accounts including Deborah Blum’s disagree with her, the audio tape that has emerged contains the words ‘So congratulations, everybody’ which must clearly have been preceded with some praise of women in science for which he was congratulating them. Despite the emergence of the tape, she has, again, not retracted this false element of her reporting and it is a serious one; she maintained in her Guardian piece that Sir Tim had offered no positive praise of women whatsoever  in his toast and that, if he had done, it would have altered matters completely. The words “…so, congratulations, everybody” prove that there was praise of women in science or science journalism in his speech.

Hunt now claims, he …praise[d] the role of women in science and in Korean society. …He did not …praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. I wish he had said, [sic] things would have been so much better.

St. Louis was malicious in claiming Hunt did not praise women in science as she endorsed accounts by Deborah Blum which openly stated that he had done so.

9. Connie St. Louis tweeted out TWICE, calling it “perfect” and “correct” and thereby endorsing it, a revolting comic that portrayed Sir Tim Hunt, in an ageist way, acting as a racist and a sexist. This is personal abuse of the most vicious kind and is ageism and slander.

TH comic 2 JTH comic 1 J

10. Connie St. Louis continued falsely to report on Twitter by claiming that Sir Tim Hunt and his wife Professor Mary Collins endorsed her reporting and refusing to withdraw this wrong claim when Professor Collins corrected her. Professor Collins said:

partial quote, missing context and meaning. poor reporting IMO. I would like you to apologise for selective quoting, ignoring meaning, thanks

11. Connie St. Louis compounded her wholly false reporting by lobbying the Royal Society to take action against Sir Tim Hunt.

And so I immediately started to ask his organisation that he’s a Fellow of, the Royal Society, which is the national academy of science in the UK: “So, what are you going to do about a Fellow that says these kind of things, abroad?”

I request that an independent investigation into the false reporting by Ms. St Louis against Erika Wright and Sir Tim Hunt take place; that the ABSW confirm that Erika Wright is the sole winner of the award for ‘Life as a Teenager’; that the ABSW formally recognize that the BBC is the submitting body in terms of the prize and that the BBC has stated in terms that no ethics breach was committed by Erika Wright – either in the application or in not altering the name on the prize; and that the ABSW committee examine the points I have raised about Ms. St. Louis’ false reporting of Sir Tim Hunt most particularly her claims that he was not joking when she admits she knew in advance he suggested the joke to his hosts and was warned off it, and also, her false claim and non-retraction of the statement that Sir Tim did not praise women in science at all even when the words ‘so congratulations’ everybody appear in the audio; and her other false statements of no laughter, deadly silence, stony faces, and so forth.

I also request that the ABSW alter its false statement saying that Sir Tim Hunt has not disputed the reporting of Connie St. Louis. He did so in every statement he ever gave on the matter in the ways that I have listed in my other letter of complaint about Martin Ince. ‘What I said’ is not the equivalent to ‘all aspects of her reporting’ and Sir Tim disputes the latter in the very broadcast ABSW cites to prove its claim.

I also request that the ABSW review its procedures for Board members, and the ABSW, disclosing conflicts of interest, and issuing statements that represent the entire society without taking a vote of the membership.

I also request the ABSW apologise to Sir Tim Hunt for its false statement that he has not disputed the reporting of Connie St. Louis.

Yours sincerely,

Louise Mensch



CEC J jpg

Corbyn: Hard For Syrians to Choose Between ISIS and USA

‘No-one should share a platform with an avowed racist’ – Jeremy Corbyn MP

Earlier this year, Jeremy Corbyn MP gave an interview, inside Parliament, to a group of antisemitic conspiracy theorists. He said it was hard for Syrians to have to choose  sides between the “rather shadowy leadership of ISIS” and the “more open and obvious leadership of the USA and the West who are propping up the government [of Iraq].” (18:40) Corbyn said this was ‘not a happy position to be’ in. Syrians were:

stuck between a war between the rather shadowy leadership of ISIS and the more open and obvious leadership of the USA and the West in propping up the government [of Iraq]……  it’s not a happy position to be if you’re a poor person stuck anywhere in Syria or Iraq



1. La Rouche And CEC Interview in Parliament

Jeremy Corbyn MP gave this interview just this year to the CEC,part of an antisemitic La Rouche cult. The video opens with the CEC banner. CEC’s current website says it supports La Rouche. La Rouche is a famous Jew-hater and Holocaust denier. This interview was this bloody year. Why did Jeremy Corbyn talk to them?

At 21:30, the interviewer says the organization had links with Corbyn from 2013 over Glass-Steagall

That’s why we came to the UK, it was such an extraordinary debate on the floor of the House of Commons.

To me this implies a CEC member sat in the Gallery as Corbyn’s guest and listened.

What is the excuse for this? How can Corbyn have brought La Rouche supporters into our Parliament? What due diligence was done? How long as he been involved with them? La Rouche is a barking mad holocaust denier.

And here’s Corbyn’s insane, full quote to these cult fantasists:

but also some sort of process where [Iraqis and Syrians] can feel a sense of security in their lives rather than being stuck between a war between the rather shadowy leadership of ISIS and the more open and obvious leadership of the USA and the West in propping up the government that’s selling off their oil resources very cheaply – it’s not a happy position to be if you’re a poor person stuck anywhere in Syria or Iraq.

It is utterly sickening that Corbyn could compare ISIS to America and the West in any way at all – much less draw an equivalence between them or say Syrians and Iraqis aren’t in a happy position when they have to choose.

2. Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon of Deir Yassin Remembered

When confronted with Corbyn’s platform sharing with anti-Semites the campaign has issued a non-denial denial on antisemitic views:

There is no question [they] have expressed them in Jeremy Corbyn’s hearing.

That is very carefully put. The real question is ‘Did Jeremy Corbyn know of the antisemitism of those he shared a platform with?’ Not ‘did they say the words next to Corbyn?’ His campaign must stop calling this question a smear, or trying to get away with saying, as they are now, that Corbyn must meet ‘those whose views he finds reprehensible.’

Before this leadership campaign, I challenge readers to give me one instance where Corbyn has ever called these people’s views “reprehensible” or called any of them out. Corbyn is acting like an ordinary politician with the non-denial-denials and the hypocrisy. For Corbyn himself said of Nick Griffin of the BNP

No-one should share a platform with an avowed racist and a fascist

Jeremy Corbyn told Cathy Newman of Channel Four that when he supported Deir Yassin Remembered it was not anti-semitic. Is that true? Here’s some evidence not so far covered in the press:

In 2005, Jeremy Corbyn went to a DYR celebration with Paul Eisen – where the famous anti-semite Gilad Atzmon was performing. Here are the photos:

GILAD AND YARON_compressed

corbyn yassir

Here is a link to the PDF invitation to this event which speaks of “Jewish” disdain for Christians: speaks of the Deir Yassin massacre as a “Jewish” slaughter, and says “Jews” (not Israelis, Jews) currently “persecute Christians and Muslims”. It also draws an equivalence between Deir Yassin and the Holocaust where six million Jews were slaughtered.

Jews persecute Muslims and Christians in Palestine

What of Jewish disdain for Christians

Deir Yassin, the site of the great atrocity against Palestinians and close to the site [Yad Vashem commemorating the great atrocity against Jews [the Holocaust] – from the invitation to the Paul Eisen DYR event Jeremy Corbyn attended in 2005

Now what had Paul Eisen published in 2005? Was he a known anti-Semite then? He was indeed. Here are all the blog posts by Eisen in 2005. (and for completeness 2004, 2003 as well). Directly below his piece reproducing the above anti-semitic language and pulling out photos of Jeremy Corbyn and Gilad Atzmon, Eisen gives us Holocaust denial and antisemitism:

Palestinians ..are not just facing the might of the Israeli state but also the power of organized world Jewry and its primary arm, the Holocaust – Paul Eisen, Dec 2004

And from the post immediately prior to the DYR one with Gilad Atzmon and Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Eisen writes:

After all, people once believed the earth was flat and sat on the back of four elephants riding on a turtle….People today …believe in astrology and fortune telling, iSo what is so hard to believe about theslaughter of six million Jews?

Eisen denies the gas chambers too and says Zyklon B was used for delousing. Awesome. On the board of DYR at this time, when Corbyn attended, was the anti-semite Israel Shamir.

Nor were these facts obscure. They made the national press. David Aaronvitch wrote this in the Times:

a Swedish fascist, Shamir sits on the 16-person board of advisers of .. Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR)… Shamir argued the Jews..were guilty of kidnapping Christian children and drinking their blood.

Now let us recall that Jeremy Corbyn has said ‘Nobody should share a platform with an avowed racist.’ Paul Eisen is one, DYR was anti-semitic at the time, and it was well known.

Further, Gilad Atzmon performed at this event. Was Atzmon a known anti-Semite in 2005? You bet. In 2003, Atzmon started his anti-semitic rants against Jews:

there is no anti-Semitism

we should …regard any act against Jews as a political reaction rather than an irrational racist attack…we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. ..American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world

That was two years before Corbyn shared a platform with him and Eisen. In 2004, Gilad Atzmon  told students:

“I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act”.

And 2005, Atzmon circulated Eisen’s Holocaust denying post above. Labour, even the far left, ran a mile.

But Jeremy Corbyn went along, to an event by the antisemitic DYR, with an antisemitic invitation, and shared a platform with two very well known racists, in 2005. How can he say he did not know? It was his duty to know. And is it true? What correspondence exists? Can he say it was never flagged up to him?

Six years later (!), in 2011 Eisen praised Corbyn again. This is the original piece from which his notorious 2015 “Jeremy Corbyn:the finest man in British politics” is taken.

I’d hardly begun my pitch before his cheque book was out and he was a paid-up member. From that day on, Jeremy, without fuss or bother, attended every single Deir Yassin commemoration. 

A little later the Jewish peace group Just Peace UK wanted to hold a vigil at the Edith Cavell statue near St Martin’s in the Fields but the authorities were being unhelpful. I wanted to impress them, so impetuously I said that I knew Jeremy Corbyn and I’d get him to sort it out. “Oh great” they said leaving me wondering what on earth I was going to do now. Well I did contact Jeremy and he did sort it out and the vigil did take place

The statue of Edith Cavell is in St. Martin’s Place, WC2. It is miles from Corbyn’s constituency of Islington North. Hansard records Corbyn as saying that he attended the demo in 2001.

So now we have Jeremy Corbyn with Paul Eisen in 2000, 2001, 2005, and 2013 (at least). In 2007 the PCS movement finally disassociated themselves with Eisen as an anti-Semite and holocaust denier (two years after he denied the holocaust). This led to Eisen stopping his DYR “celebrations” as nobody would come. But, he says, Jeremy Corbyn stuck by him:

During the time when I felt so marginalised and isolated 

The implication here is that when Eisen’s antisemitism made him a pariah even in the PCS, Corbyn, whom he says is a patron of PCS, was kind to him.

In 2007 DYR day was deserted. Eisen didn’t blog again til 2011  (with the Corbyn blog). Eisen was not “obscure”, as some of todays Corbyn defenders have said. He was a massively well-known anti-semite to the Palestinian movement.

On what possible grounds then did Jeremy Corbyn attend another DYR event in 2013?

By now he must have been well aware of his constituent Eisen’s wild antisemitism. Was the eye-watering anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon present again? Atzmon advertises the event here and here. I think not because it seems he was at DYR Glasgow where, damningly for Corbyn, Jewish groups had succeeded in canceling the antisemitic groups’s event. By this time even BDS had disassociated from Eisen.

So ‘There is no suggestion he has said [antisemitic] thing in Jeremy’s hearing’ won’t do.

The question is did Corbyn know of Eisen’s antisemitism in advance? Of Gilad Atzmon’s antisemitism in advance? He must either have known or have been criminally negligent.

2. Dyab Abou Jahjah’s antisemitism

My last blog demonstrated that Jeremy Corbyn was fully aware that Jahjah had published an anti-Semitic cartoon and celebrated 9/11 when he organised Jahjah’s appearance at a Stop the War Coalition meeting. The blog ‘Harry’s Pace’ had published both two days earlier and bombarded the Quaker House with ’emails and calls all day’ over ‘accusations of antisemitism’ said John Rees in Corbyn’s hearing.

So Jeremy Corbyn absolutely knew that Dyab Aboujahjah had published this cartoon



and celebrated 9/11 as “sweet revenge” when he hosted him at Stop the War and in Parliament. Corbyn also knew, as he sat on the stage as it was discussed, of MASSIVE protests from the Jewish community including over the specific charge Abou Jahjah’s antisemitism.

Corbyn knew. Whether Jahjah said these words “in his hearing” surely does not matter.

3. Paul Sizer’s Antisemitism

Jeremy Corbyn defended  the Church of England’s Paul Sizer, banned from social media for antisemitic posts, in 2012, writing a letter to his bishop.

Sizer had posted a link from Holocaust-denying website The Ugly Truth. Corbyn said this was merely a mistake.

MP Jeremy Corbyn, a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, claimed the use of the link had been “a technical oversight”.

He added: “The internet is a complicated piece of technology and with the best will in the world, imperfect links are made.”

Mr Corbyn wrote that Rev Sizer “seems to have come under attack by certain individuals intent on discrediting the excellent work that Stephen does in highlighting the injustices of the Palestinian Israeli situation”.

He claimed the criticism was “part of a wider pattern of demonising those who dare to stand up and speak out against Zionism”.

OK. But actually Sizer was told about the link long in advance and didn’t remove it for four months. Was it known about then? Yes, it was hugely covered in the media. The Board of Deputies brought a complaint using an ancient act of Parliament. They pointed out that far from Corbyn’s “accidental” antisemitic link Sizer had made no fewer than FIVE of them:

The matters complained of disclose a clear and consistent pattern of activity on the part of Rev Sizer. The evidence indicates that he spends time trawling dark and extreme corners of the internet for material to add to his website. Rev Sizer re-publishes such items… introducing his readers to the racist and antisemitic websites..As the evidence demonstrates, there are five instances of this over the 11 month period from July 2011 to June 2012.

The Council for Christians and Jews protested:

We have paid particular attention to a link posted by Mr Sizer on his Facebook page to ‘The Ugly Truth’, an antisemitic website. We consider this to be wholly unacceptable. We cannot accept it was an accident, because Mr Sizer was alerted to the antisemitic nature of the website in November and again in December, but only removed the link in January when contacted by the Jewish Chronicle

So that was the situation in 2012 when Jeremy Corbyn wrote that letter. It is quite obvious he knew then of Rev. Sizer’s views.

Sizer continued to write antisemitic blogs

  • The section dealing with the writing of Mark Braverman has been heavily edited so as to remove his most penetrating comments on the Holocaust and Jewish ‘specialness’.

until he was banned by the C of E from using any kind of social media.

Therefore it is time for the Corbyn campaign to be absolutely open about what Jeremy Corbyn knew of the anti-semitism of:

CEC and La Rouche

Dyab Abou Jahjah

Paul Eisen, Gilad Atzmon, and DYR

and Paul Sizer

at the times he shared a platform with Eisen and Atzmon, defended Sizer, and provided platforms by his own invitation  to Dyab Abou Jahjah and CEC/La Rouche. He should also be asked by mainstream journalists what Jewish groups said to him at the time. Pleading no knowledge of the antisemitism just won’t cut it.

Credit to Anna Gizowska

I want to credit the freelance journalist Anna Gizowska, @AnnaGiz, on Twitter. Anna alerted me to Dyab Abou Jahjah’s antisemitic cartoons published and his quote that ‘Every dead American, British and Dutch soldier I consider as a victory.’ I then spent a fair bit of time tracking down the originals and finding Abou Jahjah’s racist and homophobic blog before writing my piece. Anna originally did not want to be credited for her discovery as she was still researching Corbyn, but I asked her permission to credit her for finding the tweet where Abou Jahjah said Corbyn was his “friend”, which sent us both down the research rabbit hole, with good journalistic results.

corbyn guest 2

‘People Here Must Realise They Are Defeated’ – Corbyn’s Parliamentary Guest [UPDATE]

People here in the West have to realize that they are defeated.

I don’t want the G20 to succeed in lifting the world economy. I want them to fall off a cliff.

Holding the meeting in Parliament is very important to usmany people thought it would not be possible… it’s about linking the militants and the politicians

Dyab About Jahjah, while  sitting next to Jeremy Corbyn


Tomorrow evening it will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hizbollah [Aboujahjah,] will be speaking ….so far as I’m concerned that is absolutely the right function to use parliamentary facilities… to invite [Aboujahjah] to meet members of Parliament

Jeremy Corbyn MP, next to Aboujahjah


They’ve been under considerable pressure all day to cancel the meeting… getting people to email and call… anti-semit[ism] was still an accusation made today

John Rees of Stop the War introducing Corbyn and Aboujahjah describing the protests over Aboujahjah’s anti-semitism

My last blog reported on how Jeremy Corbyn’s guest in the British parliament, Dyab Abou Jahjah of Hizbollah, had said:

I consider every dead British …soldier as a victory

as well as writing a hate blog replete with anti-semitism and homophobia that referred to ‘Aids-spreading fagots’ ‘the cult of the Holocaust and Jew worship,’ and ‘hoax gas-chambers’ among its many other delights.

My story was picked up all over the British press and finally forced even the BBC to ask Corbyn about it. Jeremy Corbyn first denied even knowing Dyab About Jahjah.

Corbyn then did a U-turn when a photo was posted by the extremist of the two of them sitting in the Grand Committee Room of the Commons.

corbyn guest 2

But his staff were still making excuses for him to the Jewish Chronicle:

If the views expressed are indeed Aboujahjah’s there is no question he said them in Jeremy’s hearing.

The implication given is that when Jeremy Corbyn invited Aboujahjah, he did not know of his anti-Semitic views. But I’m afraid he did. They were discussed at the Stop the War public meeting, where the two spoke together, in Corbyn’s presence.

UPDATE: I am indebted to @Carlgardner on Twitter for pointing me to the real smoking gun here, which shortens my blog considerably. Corbyn and Aboujahah are introduced  by Stop the War’s John Rees. He refers to protests over Dyab’s antisemitism: ’emails and calls all day’ (0:27 and  4:30). He specifically refers to the blog ‘Harry’s Place’ published two days earlier “Stop Abou Jahjah“.

Harry’s Place had cried foul on the antisemitism of Corbyn’s guest, by reproducing this cartoon.


Harry’s Place also showed Aboujahjah celebrating 9/11 and advocating violence in demonstrations. Mr. Rees says it’s not antisemitic; it’s to do with “zionism”. Right. Sure. Because there was a modern state of Israel when Anne Frank was sent to die in Auschwitz.

So did Corbyn know of his guest’s views? Evidently, he did. The campaign should come clean.

Corbyn’s guest Aboujahjah had  also published his notorious blog containing the gay and Jewish slurs listed above.

So how does Jeremy Corbyn react, sitting there, after hearing of the Jewish protests “all day” against Aboujahjah?

“Tomorrow evening it will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hizbollah [Aboujahjah, on the platform next to him] will be speaking ….so far as I’m concerned that is absolutely the right function to use parliamentary facilities….” [applause]

Corbyn then takes very specific responsibility for organizing both events, this first one as far as Stop the War Chair and the second as an MP. He refers to the ‘International Union’ Abou Jahjah is heading as ‘we’, i.e. he is a member of it;

it is historic. And I’m very pleased that the Stop the War Coalition and the Palestinian Parliamentarians have come together to do tonight’s meeting and indeed what we are doing tomorrow night [hosting Aboujahjah in Parliament]

corbyn guest 2

Corbyn goes on: (5:38)

And part of that is to invite our friends from Lebanon [Aboujahjah] …to London to take part in those meetings, and to meet a number of members of Parliament – I can’t speak as to whether any government ministers will be there, I doubt it…

Abou Jahjah refers in his own speech, where he was right next to Jeremy Corbyn as his guest, to his role in the Arab European League including accusations of terrorism. He goes on to say: (10:30)

People here in the West have to realize that they are defeated.

And he’s charming about the financial crisis raging in the UK: (11:28)

I don’t want the G20 to succeed in lifting the world economy above the hill. I want them to fall on the cliff.

Did Jeremy Corbyn object to Aboujahjah saying ‘People here have to realise they are defeated?’ No he didn’t.

Aboujahjah (12:33) talks of Corbyn’s key role in supporting his organization in Parliament ..it was thought to be impossible to get into the UK Parliament:

The IPUFP is holding tomorrow the meeting in Parliament at the House of Commons, which is for a us a very important moment because …many people thought it will not be possible… we are also very proud to be your guests here today at the Stop The War Coalition because for us it’s about linking the militants, the activists and the politicians who are willing to talk.

Incidentally this was planned deeply by Corbyn and by Aboujahjah as a way to get the Hizbollah and Hamas terrorist groups into parliament, as a way of legitimizing these terror groups. Corbyn ‘It is absolutely the right function of parliamentary facilities’ – he even refers to the role of parliament for the furtherance of his guest’s cause:

I consider every dead American, British and Dutch soldier to be a victory – Dyab Abou Jahjah

To the Jewish Chronicle, Corbyn boasted at the time that Aboujahjah’s partner on the trip was ‘the first Hizbollah MP to speak in the House of Commons.’

Aboujahjah was trying to use Parliament to gain legitimacy for Hizbollah, with Jeremy Corbyn’s help. And it was part of a pattern for him. In Dec 08 year he had boasted of tricking the Belgian Parliament to allow a Hizbollah man in, again, to lend legitimacy:

A seminar on Palestinian prisoners in Israel was a ruse to smuggle Hizbollah leaders into Parliament and let them speak.

[House authorities] felt tricked by Ecolo MP Fouad Lahssaini. Abou Jahjah wrote jubilantly on his website AEL ‘Hezbollah was at a conference in the Belgian parliament.” About Jahjah, involved as the director of the organizing association, speaks of a “milestone for the parliament,” a “special day in his life, for the AEL and the Belgian people.”

John Rees has just banged on interminably about the rights of ‘the resistance’ i.e. Hamas and Hizbollah.  And of course the videos put up by ‘Stop the War’ are entitled ‘Meet the Resistance.’

So yes, Jeremy Corbyn didn’t “accidentally host” About Jahjah nor was he unaware of his anti-Semitic views. He knew there were Jewish protests. He knew why. He knew about the Anne Frank cartoon, and the rejoicing in 9/11. He sat there, next to Abou Jahjah, as the latter said ‘People here must realise they are defeated’ and said sod all.

Jeremy Corbyn was clear: it would be ‘my honour and my pleasure’ to host this man who gloried in the deaths of British soldiers. Corbyn intended Aboujahjah’s parliamentary visit to legitimize him.

Days later, Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary barred Jahjah from the UK.

Aboujajah J

‘Every dead British soldier is a victory’ – Jeremy Corbyn’s Parliamentary Guest

Dyab Facebook


“I consider every death of an American, British or Dutch soldier as a victory,” Dyab Abou Jahjah said in an interview with Flemish newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws on Monday.


Everything Europe holds holy… fake gas-chambers…Aids-spreading fagots [sic] – Dyab Abou Jahjah

the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping [is Europe’s] alternative religion – Dyab About Jahjah

Muslims cannot express…their disgust from [sic] homosexuality...and clearly state that they believe it’s a sickness.. without being persecuted as homophobic – Dyab Abou Jahjah


Examining Jeremy Corbyn’s association with anti-Semites is unpleasant, but necessary. It is quite stunning that the BBC refuses to ask the favourite for Leader of the UK Opposition any difficult questions about the racists he’s supported. For example, ‘Did you donate to the anti-semite Paul Eisen’s DYR organisation?‘ Not ‘do you condemn antisemitism,’ but the specific question: Did you donate to this racist?’

Corbyn is not exactly refusing to answer; the BBC is obligingly just not asking him. I wonder how it would fly if Boris Johnson were found to have given money to Nick Griffin, attended his rallies, called the English Defence League his “friends,” and then added airily ‘but I hate racism and I’m just opening a dialogue?’

It wouldn’t work and rightly not. But because the racism in this case is directed at Jews, the BBC is washing its hands.

I will produce more on Eisen and Corbyn later. But this blog is about Corbyn’s backing for a truly rabid racist and homophobe, Dyab Abou Jahjah.

In 2009 Dyab Abou Jahjah was invited as Jeremy Corbyn MP’s special guest to Parliament. He spoke in the Grand Committee Room, as the Director of International Parliamentarians for Palestine. Next, as a guest of Stop the War Coalition, Corbyn hosted him at a public meeting where they spoke together (Entry: £20).

Abou JahJah, who a few days ago was calling himself Corbyn’s “friend”, was excluded by the Home Secretary a few days later. But Corbyn most definitely invited him to Parliament personally, and organised with him to speak for Stop the War – two separate events. So this is more than ‘sharing a platform.’ This is ‘giving a platform’ and ‘organizing multiple events for’ a man who is a sickening racist, a vicious homophobe, and who glories in the deaths of British soldiers.

In 2004 Jahjah told a Flemish magazine ‘I consider every dead American, British and Dutch soldier a victory.’

Abou JahJah J


In 2006 Abou Jahjah’s antisemitism boiled into the open, as did his homophobia. He published an astonishing article entitled ‘Walking the Thin Line.’

Can’t a bigot freely express disgust at homosexuality without being called homophobic?**

Muslims and other religious people can not express their disgust from homosexuality and clearly state that they believe it’s a sickness and a deviation without being persecuted for being homophobic

Holocaust denial and revisionism:

People in Europe are not allowed to do a free historical examination of the Second World War and the holocaust and freely express an opinion on it that is different than the dominating dogmatic line.  Any attempt to have deviant historical examination of the holocaust will earn you the title of revisionist, anti-Semite

‘Holocaust cult and Jew-worshipping’

Europe had made of political correctness and the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping its alternative religion [sic]

And Dyab Abou Jahjah wants to mock everything Europe holds holy, such as ‘Aids-spreading fagots [sic]’ and ‘hoax gas chambers’

To illustrate every wall with graffiti making fun of everything Europe holds as holy: dancing rabbis on the carcasses of Palestinian children, hoax gas-chambers built in Hollywood in 1946 with Steven Spielberg’s approval stamp, and Aids spreading fagots.

Below: Dyad Abou Jahjah speaking with Jeremy Corbyn, as Corbyn’s guest. Now, I don’t suppose that the vicious left, having been shown how deep and long Corbyn’s promotion of anti-semites has gone, will care about this particularly. It’s absolutely clear to me that they are prepared to any racism or backing for racists and forgo asking questions like ‘Did you donate money to Paul Eisen’ as long as the candidate is ultra-left. But that doesn’t change the need to report on it and to speak truth to power. The vicious racist statements Abou Jahjah wrote were long public knowledge when Corbyn invited him into our Parliament, as was his statement that ‘I consider every dead British soldier to be a victory.’

In 2010, the Jerusalem Post asked Corbyn if he had severed links with his ‘friend’ Abou Jahjah. He did not say he had. Rather, he responded that he did not maintain links with anybody he thought was a racist. That means Corbyn thinks saying ‘the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping’ is not racist. July 23 and July 30 Dahdah posts Facebook and Twitter support for Corbyn, calling him his friend. I’d like to think the BBC, the Guardian and the left-wing media will ask Corbyn why he would invite somebody who wrote such a blog in 2006 into our Parliament as his guest, or would speak with him at a Stop the War event, or who would give his backing to an ‘International Parliamentarians’ group that had this vile racist and homophobe as its international director.

But I doubt it. Which goes to show that for the wider Labour movement, who are happy to elect as leader somebody who has backed racists like this, racism is bad, unless it is aimed at Jews, in which case: who cares! Corbynmania!

* Yes, I am perfectly well aware that you can criticize Israeli policy without being antisemitic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel, and everything to do with gay people and Jewish people.

** For those following my Tim Hunt reporting, this line is “irony,” meaning humour is being used to negate the sentiment ostensibly expressed, by mocking it.

Tim Hunt jokes

Connie St. Louis Falsely Accuses Colleague, Prize Winner of Ethics Breach


A search of the bot internet WayBack Machine reveals that in 2004 Ms. St Louis described herself only as the presenter, not as a producer, of the ‘Life As…’ series for which Ms. Wright had won the prize two years earlier.

I returned to the Science Unit in 1999 to begin my presentation career with a new series. LIFE BEFORE BIRTH a joint R4 /world service commission which charts the scientific and medical developements from birth to death. This is presently in its third series.

In both 2013 and 2014 her own site’s About Me page called her a broadcaster without adding ‘award-winning’.

Connie St Louis is a freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist. She is director of City University London’s Science Journalism MA.

She appears to have added ‘award-winning’ only later, with an implied claim of producing Ms. Wright’s production and series.

Connie St Louis is an award-winning broadcaster, journalist, academic, writer and scientist. She presents and produces a range of health programmes for radio including BBC Radio’s 4 landmark seven ages of man series, “Life as…”


For the first time the producer in the science unit Erika Wright broke with the traditional and ethically  way that programmes from the science unit we’re entered for the Glaxo smith Kline / ABSW  prize and submitted the programmes that were jointly made just in her name. She  realised that this was wrong and she  recognised my contribution as presenter and writer of the scripts for the programme and we shared and divided the prize. However, she neglected to ask the organisers  to add my name to the prize.

Email from Connie St. Louis, re her City University CV‘s claim of winning the prize for ‘Life As A Teenager’ actually won by producer Erika Wright; the above claims are factually false, Ms. Wright committed no ethical breaches, submitted the entry in the normal way, won the prize, and had no duty to amend it or add Ms. St. Louis’ name to it in any way.


With Tim Hunt, sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Connie St. Louis, whose reports of ‘no laughing’ and ‘deathly silence’ have now been shown to be a lie, has still not apologized in the matter. She was exposed, early on in the affair, by a forensic piece of investigative journalism by the reporter Guy Adams, as having invented much of her CV. This was hugely important at the time, as I had not yet found witnesses, photos or audio that could prove that Sir Tim Hunt was telling the truth about his brief toast in Seoul (2-3 minutes duration, not 5-7 as Ms. St. Louis falsely reported). Back then, credibility was very important. City University removed her CV from their website but said they would stand by her, as did the Association of British Science Writers.

City University, London, have now published Ms. St. Louis’s ‘updated’ CV. It is still wrong.

Does it matter that the first  “reporter” of the Sir Tim Hunt lie is still teaching journalism? I think it does. In a way, this story, at first about proving the Hunt reporting false, has moved on to being one about ethics – and discrimination. Sir Tim and Ms. St. Louis were treated very differently by their academic institutions. UCL got it wrong with Sir Tim, and City University got it partly right with Ms. St. Louis. Whereas UCL jumped on the basis of a lying tweet and a campaign by Professor David Colquhoun, with Dean of Life Sciences Prof Geraint Rees tweeting about a colleague before even speaking to him, City did not blindly believe reporting.

That was the right thing to do. They took their time and spoke to Ms. St. Louis. However, she is not being open and truthful either then or now. She is still claiming under ‘awards and prizes’ the award given to another person, the producer Erika Wright, for ‘Life as A Teenager,’ a landmark radio show that Ms. St. Louis was just the presenter on.

In a sensational email, on the record, Ms. St. Louis falsely claims that she actually won this prize, and that Ms. Wright committed multiple ethical breaches; that Ms. Wright broke with tradition to claim a joint prize singly, that did not belong to her, and that Ms. Wright further failed to correct the record by not noting who really did win that prize. “add my name to the prize”

Such a claim of an ethics breach would be highly damaging if it were at all true, which it absolutely is not. Ms. Wright as a past winner served on the panel the following year judging the next year’s winners. Ms. St. Louis’s false charge is all the more graceless and remarkable because it would appear that Ms. Wright had been very kind about Ms. St. Louis’ false claims, and Ms. St. Louis was told that in advance. A BBC spokesman had said

“The awarding of the prize was in the producer’s name, but Connie was involved and as such it would not seem unreasonable for her to put it on her CV.”

The BBC of course did not award this prize; they therefore have no standing to say who should or should not claim it; so my inference is that this generous quote reflected the thoughts of Ms. Wright. (it was an Association of British Science Writers’ prize).

Ms. St. Louis was given that gracious quote in advance. However, her reply to this generosity was to falsely accuse the actual winner of ethics breaches both in her entry of the show and her subsequent behaviour. Connie St. Louis wrote:

For the first time the producer in the science unit Erika Wright broke with the traditional and ethically  way that programmes from the science unit we’re entered for the Glaxo smith Kline / ABSW  prize and submitted the programmes that were jointly made just in her name. She  realised that this was wrong and she  recognised my contribution as presenter and writer of the scripts for the programme and we shared and divided the prize. However, she neglected to ask the organisers  to add my name to the prize. [Sic]

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that this is an absolute falsehood. Ms. Wright committed no ethics breaches; she and she alone won the award. When asked about this claim of ethics breaches the BBC refuted it very strongly.

A BBC spokesman said

We are unaware of these allegations. Any suggestion that the proper process wasn’t followed around the 2002 award is untrue.

The false accusation that Ms. Wright broke with “the traditional and ethically way” [sic] that entries were made to the prize is factually false.The BBC has a process, and Ms. Wright as producer was the sole winner. In this link you can see previous BBC Science entries made for the producer of any show submitted to the awards.

Ms. St. Louis is here flinging vile accusations, without a shred of evidence to support them, at a former colleague who has been kinder to her than she deserves. Is that who City University Journalism students deserve to have designing their MA? A ‘journalist’ who not only reports lies and steals credit, but accuses other journalists of ethics breaches for prizes they actually won?

At some point universities have a duty to examine what they offer to students, not just a loyalty to staff.

Ms. St. Louis also accused City University for being responsible for the false information on her CV, such as that she wrote for papers she never wrote for:

My cv has not been changed. The information that was put on the website by the university was part of online profile trial it was inaccurate and scraped from places that were old and inaccurate. I had no Idea that this incorrect information was publicly available until I was asked about it last month. This information was removed as soon as possible.This profile is in the form of that the university stipulates. It is the first time I have written a profile for the university website.

This is, of course, absolute and total rubbish. Ms. St. Louis stood for election to the World Federation of Science Journalists on the same false CV. She submitted that CV to them. WCSJ2015, which sold conference tickets falsely calling her an ‘award-winning scientist’, is the conference of WFSJ – they are one and the same.

Ms. St. Louis was elected on a fraudulent CV and the WFSJ removed the same from their website to protect her. I do not include a link as the CV has personal details on it, but it has been archived.

City University needs to ask some ethical questions. Ms. St Louis is now on the Board of a World Federation of Science Journalists, elected by her peers on a CV that has been proven to be full of lies. It is not out-of-date – it is invented. Why did she falsely claim to write for papers she has not written for? Why does she put “Member of the Royal Institute” on her CV? These are not ‘out of date’ errors they are Jayson Blair style fiction.

Finally, Ms. St. Louis is a former President of the Association of British Science Writers. They were the award-giving body to ‘Life As a Teenager’. They supported her after her false CV was revealed. There is a huge conflict of interest in these ‘Science Journalism’ bodies acting improperly to cover up false reporting by one of their own.

Ms. St. Louis is, further, being covered up for by the Guardian newspaper. As her emails show, she is not at all a good writer; she writes with appalling grammar, yet positions herself as a senior journalist. Of course she is not likely to have lots of print journalism experience as she falsely claimed as she cannot write. There is an issue with the Guardian so heavily editing her wretchedly poorly written article slamming Sir Tim Hunt (and further lying about what he said). Here is the original.

First, a handmaidenesqueinterview in the Observer at Hunt’s lovely house in rural Hertfordshire. The interview is full of lovely anecdotes of Hunt doing the grocery shopping and cooking (a modern reconstructed man?). It ends with what can only be describes as a ‘whining’ platform.

“A whining platform”?

But because I thought it might happen and there might be a possibility that too much attention was turned on Hunt. [sic]

It goes on.

I asked the Royal Society, who is in charge of these matters in the UK funded by the taxpayer;


The Nobel eight’s idiotic attempt to orchestrate and equate the upset caused by Hunt’s ill advised and sexist comments with some kind of ‘academic chilling’.

Ohhh-kay. I’m sure they are all absolute idiots, as you say. ‘to orchestrate and equate the upset caused’ – well, if i can detangle some English sense out of that, Ms. St. Louis, I rather think that this was your role, was it not?

Connie St. Louis needs to apologise to both Erika Wright and Sir Tim Hunt. She accused them both falsely. She also ought not to be designing an MA course in journalism, or sitting on the WFSJ or ABSW boards, either. I will assume since City University didn’t care about her false CV, they won’t mind their students being taught by a woman who falsely accuses her colleague of stealing a joint prize through unethical behaviour (although I hope I am wrong). I assume that WFSJ, with Curtis Brainard, Deborah Blum, and Ivan Oransky all involved in its governance, is OK both with its members being deceived in an election and a new Board member lying about another journalist’s prize and that journalist’s ethics; same with ABSW who know perfectly well that Erika Wright correctly submitted her entry and won the award.

But all of that does not speak well to the ethics and standing of Connie St. Louis. Rather, it speaks very poorly to the ethics of the top brass at the World Federation of Science Journalists and at the Association of British Science Writers (if the latter now stand by her). Whether City University do anything to prevent their students being taught journalism by a lecturer who makes wholly false allegations against another science journalist, and wrongly claims that person’s prize, we shall see. They have a duty to their students. At this point Ms. St. Louis’ wrongful behaviour is already on the record. It is the behaviour of the institutions around her that is looking more and more unethical.