Bad Odour in Clubland
This is a guest post by Jonathan Hoffman
I complete surveys every so often for YouGov Stone. I am on their ‘influential people’ panel “of over 3,000 opinion leaders drawn from the worlds of business, media, politics, academia, science and the arts”.
Last night there was a debate at the Reform Club for members of the ‘Stone Club’. This is the initiative of Carole stone. It’s a ‘networking’ Club for which one pays a subscription. However last night’s event was also open to the members of the panel.
It was a fairly amorphous topic – “Who calls the shots: business, politicians or the media?” but Nick Ferrari was one of the speakers and I wanted to congratulate him for terminating his PressTV show.
One of the first floor speakers was a blonde in the back row. Imagine my surprise when she gave her name: Michèle Renouf.
Both Andrew Neil (the Chair) and Nick had mentioned that Nick had finished with PressTV and she clearly felt this needed a response. First she said how wonderful Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva was. Then she said it was “bankers” who call the shots. Renouf has form of course and when she says ‘bankers’ … she is not talking Sir Fred Goodwin or Bob Diamond .…..
Renouf is so extreme that she has even been banned by the BNP
After the debate I asked her why, if Ahmadinejad’s speech was so great, most Western delegations had either walked out or not attended in the first place. “Because they are weak” came the answer. I then got a stream of Jew hate. Borobijan should be the Jewish homeland; Obama is hopeless because he is ‘Jew-ish’, so is Ban Ki Moon, so are all Western politicians; Countries are all in debt to ‘Jewish bankers like “Rothschild and Sieff’ ” (er .. he was the founder of M and S, not a banker, but since when do raging antisemites care about detail….), “there is a world Zionist conspiracy” (she really thinks that!), “there are Jews and there is Jew-ish”
The irony is that Renouf was apparently forced to resign her Reform Club membership some time after the David Irving trial (when she invited Irving as a guest!). So what was she doing there last night? Well the word on Pall Mall is that ahead of the event, there was quite a kerfuffle about her presence and that the powers-that-be at the Club were not at all happy, but that resignation may have been threatened. I hear she attends all the Stone Club events and that her presence has caused at least two people – far more important than me – to distance themselves (one Jewish, one not).
Well I do not think I want anything to do with people who think that Renouf belongs in polite society.
Carole Stone if you are reading this – thanks for last night, but please take me off your panel. When you are prepared to give Renouf her marching orders, let me know – and I will be delighted to come back.
Comments
| 2 July 2009, 2:52 pm |
I think that whatever question you asked batty bitch Renouf, where the question was about something that went wrong or didn’t go right her answer would be “Jews”!.
Why did Spurs lose? Jews!
How did that pile-up on the M25 happen? Jews!
Why has a Mars bar shrunk in size? Jews!
Why have we got a heat-wave? Jews!
Why does HP blog exist? ……!
Phew, only another 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 questions to pose.
| 2 July 2009, 2:53 pm |
“‘influential people’ panel “of over 3,000 opinion leaders drawn from the worlds of business, media, politics, academia, science and the arts”.”
Democracy in action! Reminds me far too much of New Labour and its slavish obsession with focus groups and unelected quangos run by our betters (or my betters anyway).
“she is not talking Sir Fred Goodwin or Bob Diamond .…..”
Actually I always assumed Diamond was Jewish (never met a non-Jewish Diamond yet) so she probably was, or thought she was. That Fred Goodwin-or Finkel Glickman before he changed his name-always struck me as a bit suspicious too, even, in the words of Mr T, a touch “cosmopolitan”…
| 2 July 2009, 3:00 pm |
Renouf, I should add, obviously holds some nasty, nay bonkers views but how seriously is she really taken? Perhaps she should apply to fill the vacancy recently arisen at Press TV.
On that subject, a Mr Richardson of Press TV got a mauling by Paxman and Martin Bright of the New Statesman last night, making himself look very dim, uninformed and paranoid, raving about Bright parrotting what he had read about Press TV on “some blog”. I wonder which one.
| 2 July 2009, 3:01 pm |
“Why did Spurs lose? Jews!”
To be fair…
| 2 July 2009, 3:04 pm |
I object. It was Arsenal.
| 2 July 2009, 3:06 pm |
“If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”
– Abba Eban
Renouf’s views on Jews are the same tired idea writ small.
| 2 July 2009, 3:36 pm |
How much do you estimate Renouf to be worth?
| 2 July 2009, 3:40 pm |
kmag
Not much at all
| 2 July 2009, 3:56 pm |
Renouf is essentially a sales person for the Holocaust Denial and the resurgent Extreme Right movement, she probably attends such events to raise her own profile, look for supporters and test the political waters.
Renouf knows that most at these meetings will be against her, but she’s probably looking out for that rich, wealthy crank who will buy into her anti-Jewish propaganda.
| 2 July 2009, 4:04 pm |
What I don’t understand is why Stone doesn’t dump Renouf. The association cannot help Stone in that – highly cosmopolitan – industry. It doesn’t make sense.
| 2 July 2009, 4:06 pm |
Probably didn’t register on Stone’s radar, antifascism is not what it was.
| 2 July 2009, 4:08 pm |
But antisemitism in the media/PR industries is a complete no-no. It is professional suicide.
| 2 July 2009, 4:29 pm |
O RLY, EdwardT?
Sure doesn’t seem like it nowadays.
| 2 July 2009, 5:29 pm |
Carole Stone probably realises that she will get some publicity by having Renouf in attendance and she may well be of the opinion that all publicity is good publicity. It is however quite poor to sink to that level for a bit of pubicity.
| 2 July 2009, 5:32 pm |
Carole Stone is married to Richard Lindley.
He is no friend of Israel……….
| 2 July 2009, 7:00 pm |
Jonathan: ‘Well the word on Pall Mall is that ahead of the event, there was quite a kerfuffle about her presence and that the powers-that-be at the Club were not at all happy, but that resignation may have been threatened.’ Who are the powers that be and whose resignation was threatened? I am an ‘influential person’ too, but maybe not for much longer. Mikey: I don’t think Carole Stone has Renouf in attendance for publicity; she just likes to have all sorts, the more the merrier, at her events.
| 2 July 2009, 7:27 pm |
The Reform Club? Sounds pure dead classy. How do we go about joining that then? Do you think they would do reciprocal membership with Garnock Labour Social Club?
| 2 July 2009, 9:15 pm |
Can’t really give a gut reaction cos the idea of a luvvies networking club makes me feel a bit nauseous to start with.
| 2 July 2009, 9:26 pm |
Nicky L
You can guess. You’d be right.
| 2 July 2009, 10:53 pm |
I’m not particularly concerned about Carole Stone. If she can make money out of getting people to subscribe to her club in order to network (but it actually seems de facto to be used by her as market research fodder) that’s for the customers to decide.
However, YouGov is quite another matter. It’s a highly reputed polling organization and its polls influence public opinion. Peter Kellner, one of its stakeholders, is someone I cannot imagine wanting to be associated with this high profile and shameless anti-semite and Holocaust denier. Its two major stakeholders are Nadhim Zahawi and Stephan Shakespeare. They were once promoters of Jeffrey Archer’s Mayor of London campaign. Shows possible lack of political judgement. How does YouGov feel about having its brand associated with Michele Renouf? How come in any case that it lends its name to endorse the credibility of Carole Stone’s group?
Jonathan, if you have any info on the YouGov side of the operation, I’d be interested to know.
| 2 July 2009, 10:53 pm |
I’m not particularly concerned about Carole Stone. If she can make money out of getting people to subscribe to her club in order to network (but it actually seems de facto to be used by her as market research fodder) that’s for the customers to decide.
However, YouGov is quite another matter. It’s a highly reputed polling organization and its polls influence public opinion. Peter Kellner, one of its stakeholders, is someone I cannot imagine wanting to be associated with this high profile and shameless anti-semite and Holocaust denier. Its two major stakeholders are Nadhim Zahawi and Stephan Shakespeare. They were once promoters of Jeffrey Archer’s Mayor of London campaign. Shows possible lack of political judgement. How does YouGov feel about having its brand associated with Michele Renouf? How come in any case that it lends its name to endorse the credibility of Carole Stone’s group?
Jonathan, if you have any info on the YouGov side of the operation, I’d be interested to know.
| 2 July 2009, 11:01 pm |
Carole Stone sounds like a lady you wouldn’t want to take too close an interest in you.
| 2 July 2009, 11:18 pm |
Wow, so the world has another Eva Braun
| 2 July 2009, 11:40 pm |
Sydney Morning Herald
December 3, 2002
Formed 166 years ago, the Reform Club on Pall Mall is an exclusive haunt of Britain’s elite, a place where the country’s top lawyers, judges, politicians, executives and media types relax and debate matters of import.
Renouf, who describes herself as an actor and postgraduate psychology student (not to mention former model, dancer and beauty queen Miss Newcastle 1968), is an active member. She is friends with several of the club’s leading lights, including ace London networker and salon host Carole Stone and Professor Bob Worcester, the chairman of the Mori polling group. Calling her friend “beautiful” and “an uplifting person”, Stone said: “She is someone who has very individual views. She takes them to the nth degree.”
But due to Renouf’s articulate and forthright support for Irving’s views, Reform has become the reluctant battleground for the outer limits of freedom of speech. “Freedom of speech and the right of people to demonstrate I would uphold,” said one club member, who declined to be named. “But you have to draw the line somewhere and antisemitism is it.”
What has brought matters to a head is Renouf’s nomination to be elected to the club’s 15-member general committee, its ruling board. On December 11, five new members will be chosen for a three-year term. If Renouf wins a seat, some members are believed to be considering resigning.
Renouf’s nomination is said to have prompted a record field of 10 nominations and a push to ensure a good voter turnout to defeat her.
Two months ago the club attempted to have Renouf expelled for writing an unpublished letter to London’s Evening Standard supporting Irving. It found its way to the internet. She had signed it, “Lady Renouf, Reform Club, 104 Pall Mall”, a move seen by some as lending the club’s good name to Irving.
But it is understood she was saved by an eloquent speech on her behalf by Worcester. She said signing the address of the club was just a convention.
Renouf described Judaism as a “repugnant and hateful religion”, though stressed she was not anti-Jew.
| 2 July 2009, 11:41 pm |
The first rule is never trust people who wear bow ties.
The second is never trust people who point with their little fingers.
| 2 July 2009, 11:45 pm |
Judy – I haven’t
I agree about Kellner – I can’t see him enthusing about the Renouf link either – he has always seemed a thoroughly good guy
| 2 July 2009, 11:50 pm |
“Calling her friend “beautiful” and “an uplifting person”, Stone said: “She is someone who has very individual views. She takes them to the nth degree.” ”
Wel that’s certainly one way of putting it Carole.
Though what does it say about you to call this revolting antisemite “beautiful” and “an uplifting person”?
Would you have said the same abut Hitler? David Irving?
Yuk………..
| 3 July 2009, 4:49 am |
Judy
However, YouGov is quite another matter. It’s a highly reputed polling organization and its polls influence public opinion.
I know you didn’t mean it that way but there is something back to front about that statement.
| 3 July 2009, 5:10 am |
Jonathan. From the Adloyada article ‘BBC presents Holocaust denier without telling you that’s what she is’
Quite apart from the outrageousness of giving a platform for Holocaust denial, this particular news treatment is most concerning because it suggests that truth of the Holocaust is coming to be relativised in public debate by being seen as one related to “offence”, for the reason that it is seen as needing to be treated as an analogue of Muslim offence over portrayals of Mohammed and of Islam in general.
That clarifies something that I have been feeling for 3 years now.
The attempt at moral relativism betweem Muslum offense at mirth directed at the Prophet and research into the Holocast.
| 3 July 2009, 11:30 am |
chattering classes antisemitism – gasps in amazement!
| 3 July 2009, 12:53 pm |
Are you saying it’s what should be expected now?
If so …….. that is deeply depressing
But I don’t agree
| 3 July 2009, 1:59 pm |
I’d guess that she said “Schiff” not “Sieff”: the reference being to Jacob Schiff, who would likely be mentioned alongside Rothschild in that context.
And do you really think your case is helped by the rather shambolic walkout by some Western diplomats during Ahmadinejad’s Durban II speech?
The British Ambassador proved pitifully unable to defend his behaviour during an interview on Newsnight at the time, when he was unable even to answer Paxman’s question: “What’s the difference between Zionism and Racism?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvVNX0×69uo
And speaking of racism, you approvingly note that Nick Griffin banned Lady Renouf from speaking at a BNP meeting. Mr Griffin may be able to exercise dictatorial control over his party; you are seeking to dictate the terms of someone else’s debate, with various contributors to this blog implying that Carole Stone should be blackmailed into rewriting her guest list.
Is this any way to improve the image of the Zionist Federation?
| 3 July 2009, 2:09 pm |
Jonathan – no, that’s the contrary of what I meant.
I was just lazily flagging up chattering class antisemitism because I find it particularly grating, along with its rotten bedfellows: intellectual and literary elite antisemitism.
Paxmanite – Jonathan’s point seems straightforward to me: along the lines of, ’she is too extreme for even the BNP, but not, it seems for the Stone Club’. I think its a highly pertinent point of info’ in the context of his piece.
| 3 July 2009, 3:13 pm |
Mark – thanks
“Paxmanite” – Were you there? No. I was and she said ‘Sieff’. Is revisionism a hobby of yours?
Stone can hang out with whom she wants. But as Mark notes, if she chooses to hang out with someone too extreme even for the BNP, I think that’s something her ‘network’ might find of interest – don’t you? Especially as she is charging for membership and no doubt sees it as a business asset to YouGov Stone. ‘Nicky L’ above seems to be in her network and seems to agree, anyway – even if you do not.
I’m touched by your concern about the image of the ZF. If you would like to join, we can discuss your ideas. But we would need to know your name first – and we’re not too keen on would-be revisionists.
| 3 July 2009, 4:57 pm |
Paxmanite - Mr Griffin may be able to exercise dictatorial control over his party; you are seeking to dictate the terms of someone else’s debate, with various contributors to this blog implying that Carole Stone should be blackmailed into rewriting her guest list.
When Hoffman has publicised his demands after explaining his position, that can never be construed as blackmail.
| 3 July 2009, 7:00 pm |
Clap Hammer,
Here is my position I am skint and you are not as skint as I am.
I there fore demand that you hand over 10 000 pounds Sterling immediately, or I’ll print some cleverly forged prints of you in a compromising position with a household utensil.
I presumably am not blackmailing you, as I have publicised my position, prior to making my demands.
| 4 July 2009, 1:39 am |
Jonathan -
I got the impression from your article that this was not an event where anyone was “charged for membership”. If some business networker paid for a power breakfast with a City economist then of course they might feel aggrieved to get a lecture on the Holocaust instead.
But if you turn up to a debate you can expect to hear conflicting opinions. If you threaten the debate’s organisers with a Zionist boycott of her business, as implied by numerous contributors here, are you not at risk of promoting stereotypes of the Zionist lobby?
(Almost as much as the lady in the JC this week wanting to promote Kidneys for Jews -
http://www.thejc.com/articles/kidney-donation-law-must-change)
Doubt I’ll be signing up for the ZF any time soon, as having done a bit more reading earlier today I’m even more sure that Lady R must have said Schiff rather than Sieff.
So by your reckoning I’m a proto-revisionist. How many years in prison should that sort of ‘revisionism’ incur, in your humble opinion?
| 4 July 2009, 7:24 am |
Paxmanite
Let’s get this straight: You are saying I lied about her saying “Sieff”; you accuse me of ‘threatening a Zionist boycott’ when I merely reported the facts and pulled out of the panel; you dignify out-and-out racism by the phrase ‘conflicting opinions’.
Is racism against Muslims or blacks merely a ‘conflicting opinion’?
If you’re trying to portray yourself as a Renouf supporter, you’re not doing a bad job at all.
| 4 July 2009, 10:36 am |
Jonathan asks Paxmanite: “Is racism against Muslims or blacks merely a ‘conflicting opinion’?”
I wonder if Paxmanite thinks it’s only ‘racism against Jews’ that is a ‘conflicting opinion’ …………
| 4 July 2009, 12:59 pm |
Jonathan -
Not for the first time, you protest too much.
I haven’t said you “lied” about anything. I just thought (and still think) Schiff would be a very likely name to mention for someone with Lady R’s point of view; Sieff would not.
It would also be very easy for you to mishear – more likely (imho) than either you lying or Lady R bringing Sieff into a conversation about bankers.
As for conflicting opinions, I’m sure you are more than capable of looking after yourself in a debate at the Stone Club. Wouldn’t it be more edifying for you to pursue that debate in the normal fashion rather than trying to organise a boycott?
And btw that is very clearly what’s going on here: while I’m sure you’re not “lying” about Sieff/Schiff, you are being disingenuous about your efforts to bully Carole Stone, consistent with your earlier behaviour re Chris Blackhurst of the Standard.
| 4 July 2009, 1:18 pm |
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/26/what-is-the-point-of-the-press-complaints-commission/
You mean when Blackhurst made an allegation about the ‘pro-Israel lobby’ which my subsequent ‘Freedom of Information’ request to the Treasury suggested was completely false?
Paxmanite, you dig yourself in deeper with every post!
On the basis of no evidence whatsoever you decide it was Schiff not Sieff. That is tantamount to saying that I am lying.
| 4 July 2009, 1:24 pm |
When I told Renouf that Sieff was not a banker she did not say “You misheard me, I said Schiff”
But I’m sure that won’t stop your attempts at revisionism
| 4 July 2009, 2:25 pm |
No Jonathan, I mean when the PCC rejected your complaint so you took your vendetta to Harry’s Place, where an extraordinary conspiracy theory was confected in which the Standard’s city editor was portrayed as a dedicated anti-semite.
As for “revisionism”, I merely suggest that since many people of Lady R’s outlook would be likely to speak of Schiff in the same breath as Rothschild, it is very probable that she was speaking of Schiff rather than Sieff.
Hardly an outrageous allegation of “lying”, more a matter of common sense I’d have thought.
| 4 July 2009, 2:36 pm |
“an extraordinary conspiracy theory was confected in which the Standard’s city editor was portrayed as a dedicated anti-semite.”
You’re away with the fairies. Goodbye.
| 4 July 2009, 4:54 pm |
Read the thread Jonathan, at the URL you helpfully provided:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/26/what-is-the-point-of-the-press-complaints-commission/
I can’t see how you can dispute that it developed into a cranky conspiracy theory portraying Blackhurst as a covert anti-semite.
Your sub-Dershowitz mission to intimididate opponents doesn’t seem to have worked too well in Blackhurst’s case. (Ironically this is the one piece of evidence in the entire saga which militates against the idea of a powerful Zionist conspiracy!!!)
| 4 July 2009, 6:53 pm |
The only conspiracy theorist around here is you, with your comments about ‘bullying’ and ‘intimidation’. Par for the course for people like you though.
The correct answer to Paxman by the way is to point out that Zionism was a RESPONSE to racism against the Jews from people like Renouf. And to say that if Israel had been created 10 years earlier, many lives might have been saved.
And how about an answer: Is it only ‘racism against Jews’ that is a ‘conflicting opinion’ ?
| 7 July 2009, 3:04 am |
Simon:
The intent to bully and intimidate permeates this thread (as it did the one about Chris Blackhurst).
Your second paragraph implies that you believe Zionism was a response to the Holocaust – a rewriting of history beyond anything the “revisionists” have attempted.
As for your question about racism, I haven’t answered it because I haven’t understood it. Nothing that Jonathan described about the debate appears “racist”, though as I wasn’t there I’ve no idea whether there were racist speeches that he hasn’t reported. (I do know for example that Jonathan’s hero Nick Ferrari was censured for his LBC show’s racism by the Broadcasting Standards Commission in 2003.)
As for the conversations he reports after the debate, they could hardly be classed as racist either, if Jonathan is accurate in reporting Lady R’s criticisms of “Jew-ish” behaviour by clearly non-Jewish politicians.
Self-evidently these are not racial remarks. They may well have been extreme and offended Jonathan, but they can only have referred to a religion or ideology, not to a race.
“Bad odour in Clubland”? I thought it was going to be about this load of tossers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1196959/Birthday-girl-Cheryl-Cole-wears-revealing-4-000-Alexander-McQueen-dress–did-mum-really-commando.html
With people like this shoving it your face there is something to be said for “Vive La Revolution”