I think it is time for a new series of 'Questions of the Day'. Let me start with a slightly frivolous one.
It has been suggested that Rachel Reeves' new book contains plagiarised text.
Her office says corrections will be made if there is a second edition, which might be wishful thinking on their part.
What do you think?
If Rachel Reeves' book contains plagiarised taxt should it be pulled from sale before publication?
- Yes (51%, 244 Votes)
- I don't care: I wouldn't read it anyway (46%, 223 Votes)
- No (3%, 16 Votes)
Total Voters: 483
Loading ...
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Give it a few months, and sufficient quantities of it will have made it to the warehouse where all such unwanted books end up and we can only hope that it gets repurposed into animal bedding or toilet roll – both of which have far greater utility and value than Reeves herself.
But not all of them, cos bonfire night is coming & as the old song goes:
build a bonfire
build a bonfire
put the tories on the top
put liebore in the middle
etc.
What better to get a good blaze going than Reeves’ Book on Tripe.
& thus hoist with her own petard !!
Uni teachers use TurnItIn to detect any level of plagiarism. I’d be interested in the TurnItIn report and score of Reeves’ work before making any value judgements.
Undergrad and postgrad students have an introductory lecture, on such issues, to ensure they do not normally use sources such as Wiki or cut and paste extensively. Referencing of other works is an important topic for students to understand and adopt for quoted works or quoted text e.g recommended extent of using quotations, with quotation marks. Any plagiarism can lead to a year of study being cancelled or worse.
If Reeves has not adopted, what every undergrad knows, she undermines her learned writings, perhaps to such an extent it should not be read.
“Its difficult to build a reputation but easy to destroy one”.
I like Turnitin. It does the job.
I required resubmissions from students who plagiarised.
And your last comment is very appropriate. This is a vanity project that has gone very wrong.
She has been stealing ideas from the Tories and Bank of England economics textbook for ages so what’s new?
Pulp them and turn them into Animal Farm?
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/oct/26/david-shrigley-turns-da-vinci-code-novels-nineteen-eighty-four
I was intrigued to read about her book and imagined she might have a final chapter about Stephanie Kelton , Mariana Mazzucato and Kate Raworth’s interesting doughnut metaphors : but I do t seem to pick them up in reviews? Anybody read it yet?
Nigel
I don’t think it is out yet
Why just pulp her book?
I don’t understand your question, PSR. Did you mean: Why not just pulp her book?
C’mon larry – wake up – do I have to spell it our to you? Because I won’t.
PSR, I think it’s illegal.
It sounds as if the existing copy is, ipso facto, already the second edition.
Following article in today’s Guardian re the heads behind, & steering, Kid Starver, a key player is Josh Simons who, given his not-shy, LinkedIn swank seems to be a whizz kid on AI. Reeves inspiration for how to write a book, by any chance?? On further checks, Simons partner in Liebore subversion is Morgan McSweeney who seems to have been behind those Liebore attack ads earlier in the summer.
Incidentally in that Guardiniad article, Simons now director of this Labour Together (Script supplier to Sir Starver), is quoted as, “It’s always baffled me that people think it’s a moral compromise to be voter focused. A politician’s job is as much about listening as speaking.” That wouldn’t have permitted the death penalty to be abolished in the 1960s. In fact public opinion in 2021 was still 54% in favour!
So seems Liebore are still tied to focus groups, listening to mostly ill-informed opinion, thanks to our standard of MSM.
Which brings me back to the importance of your work, Richard, in driving a wedge of understanding into MSM. Hope the Greens are listening to you.
Thanks
But can we drop the acronyms?
I think they are alienating more than they help.
Given the Guardian article is partially true and quite revealing (it neglects the linked influence of BICom as well as Blair’s pals), it suggests that the Starmer Project is a moral vacuum, an empty policy space to be filled by any old junk that seems to work or benefits its backers.
Labour was founded as a practical and moral enterprise ergo this is no longer Labour.
@John Griffin
“…no longer Labour”
New Labour replaced Labour under the leadership of Tony Blair a few (damn near thirty) years ago. There is no longer any such thing as the Labour Party, but people will still vote in the belief that there is.
Goodness only knows what Starmer stands for – all indications are that he himself doesn’t.
This is off topic really. Reeves’ book? We should give her the same credit she gives to her sources.
Reeves is in very little danger of seeing her work being plagiarised.